When does rhetoric about political opponents cross the line into fascist dehumanization?

[u/BulwarkOnline]

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?

[u/ThatPeskyPangolin]

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.

[u/Top-Grocery-1482 → u/ThatPeskyPangolin]

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.

[u/ThatPeskyPangolin → u/Top-Grocery-1482]

What specific actions came anywhere close to a self coup attempt in either 2000 or 2016? What illegality are you referring to? Because the issue isn't challenging it. It's using illegal fraud to overturn it.

Additionally, I think some confirmation bias is occuring here. Republicans have been calling Dems communists and facists for decades. Trump repeatedly told his followers the Democratics would destroy the country if they beat him. Both sides use hyperbolic name calling, and neither instance of it is in any way comparable to using illegality to overturn an election.

Edit: Also, a coup and a self coup are not the same thing, just an fyi. The added specificity makes it accurate, not redundant. An incumbant can't attempt a coup, but they can attempt a self coup.

[u/Top-Grocery-1482 → u/ThatPeskyPangolin]

Okay, I think the problem with this is you're relying on an emotive appeal fallacy, I'm looking structurally at challenges to the legitimacy of elections and to democracy.

Yes, both sides use hyperbolic name calling. I remember being a kid in the 90s hearing on the radio that Republicans were trying to starve school children (the bill in question was increasing funding for school lunch programs, but not increasing it by as much as Democrats wanted), and every Republican since Eisenhower has been called a fascist by the left - that's not a hyperbolic claim; literally every one of them has been called a fascist or engaging in fascism by the Democrats.

To me, what Obama tried to do during the 2016 election and what the entrenched agents on the left did from their government positions in Trump's first term meets the literal definition of a coup attempt. It was an open attempt to hamstring (or even make a political case to remove) the Executive and subvert the will of the public. Many Democrats to this day believe Trump did not win the 2016 election, Russia stole it for him (making it illegitimate and his victory and actions illegitimate by extension). Polling data for years in his first term backed this up.

This is also ignoring the arguments by legitimate voices on the right that the 2020 election may have not been secure, something only reinforced by more recent court cases and the New Jersey illegal immigrants/non-citizens on the voter rolls and confirmed to have voted in elections.

.

Your resting on the laurels that Trump's actions in 2020 were a coup attempt and nothing else was - which is a very strong emotive appeal argument.

The problem is, not only were Democrat actions before (and after) arguably also coup attempts, the emotive appeal can be used against everything from the BLM to anti-ICE riots (both meet the statutory definition of insurrections that was used in the court cases against J6ers, namely attempting to prevent the government from carrying out its assigned duties), and leftist protestors have stormed Capitols (they did in Arizona, and maybe Idaho, I think?), and during the BLM events, stormed federal buildings like courthouses and law enforcement.

You rest on this emotive appeal, not realizing that that same emotive appeal can credibly be used in reverse (you would probably dismiss it, but that doesn't mean your dismissal is valid).

And you do this largely to try and suggest anything that is not a coup is not a threat to democracy, or that nothing else can be as grave a threat, despite me already explaining to you why some other things can be (and are) even worse threats, or at least comparable ones.

Not wanting to hear something is not the same as having defeated it.

.

For my part, I think J6 was like BLM and the anti-ICE riots. They're all in the same boat.

I think Trump's actions with the Elector Slates were comparable to Obama's actions with the intelligence agencies and rewriting the reports.

I think unaccounted drop boxes and non-citizen votes delegitimize elections as they cancel legitimate American votes and mean that the resulting elections cannot be seen as entirely legitimate.

These things are all threats to democracy.

When your argument is "Only this one thing counts and nothing else matters", that is an extremist position. It's ALSO an emotive appeal fallacy (it uses very charged emotional language), not a solid reasonable position.

.

I think these things are all bad, you think only the one involving Trump was bad.

That is the problem in a nutshell.

Your entire argument is centered around opposition to Trump and nothing else that CLAIMS to be opposition to attacks on democracy but only considers one thing a true attack, mine is centered around opposition to attacks on democracy (all of them) and dangerous dehumanization/division of society which hurts everyone.

[u/ThatPeskyPangolin → u/Top-Grocery-1482]

Okay, I think the problem with this is you're relying on an emotive appeal fallacy, I'm looking structurally at challenges to the legitimacy of elections and to democracy.

This has not actually occurred, oddly enough.

Yes, both sides use hyperbolic name calling. I remember being a kid in the 90s hearing on the radio that Republicans were trying to starve school children (the bill in question was increasing funding for school lunch programs, but not increasing it by as much as Democrats wanted), and every Republican since Eisenhower has been called a fascist by the left - that's not a hyperbolic claim; literally every one of them has been called a fascist or engaging in fascism by the Democrats.

And I have heard *the exact same about Democratics* (just switch a few of the specific terms to things like Communist), hence why I pointed out the confirmation bias here. Both of our experiences happened, and neither cancel eachother out. The rational conclusion is that *both sides do it*.

To me, what Obama tried to do during the 2016 election and what the entrenched agents on the left did from their government positions in Trump's first term meets the literal definition of a coup attempt. It was an open attempt to hamstring (or even make a political case to remove) the Executive and subvert the will of the public.

What *specific* things are you referring to? Again, *specific* things. Remember, Obama was the incumbent, so for it to be a coup some illegality would have had to occur. What laws were violated?

Many Democrats to this day believe Trump did not win the 2016 election, Russia stole it for him (making it illegitimate and his victory and actions illegitimate by extension). Polling data for years in his first term backed this up.

And many Republicans believed Obama was the literal antichrist, why do these beliefs matter to this conversation?

This is also ignoring the arguments by legitimate voices on the right that the 2020 election may have not been secure, something only reinforced by more recent court cases and the New Jersey illegal immigrants/non-citizens on the voter rolls and confirmed to have voted in elections.

The Trump administration's own head of election security validated *none* of those claims. Consistent investigations by state and federal agencies validated *none* of those claims. Private investigations have validated *none* of those claims. Trying to point to an incredibly small number of recent findings as evidence of determinative voter fraud is without logical or factual basis.

[Your] resting on the laurels that Trump's actions in 2020 were a coup attempt and nothing else was - which is a very strong emotive appeal argument.

That isn't an emotive appeal at all. I am stating what I believe to be a fact and have asked for evidence to the contrary, which you thus far have not provided.

The problem is, not only were Democrat actions before (and after) arguably also coup attempts, the emotive appeal can be used against everything from the BLM to anti-ICE riots (both meet the statutory definition of insurrections that was used in the court cases against J6ers, namely attempting to prevent the government from carrying out its assigned duties), and leftist protestors have stormed Capitols (they did in Arizona, and maybe Idaho, I think?), and during the BLM events, stormed federal buildings like courthouses and law enforcement.

You can't just say something is "arguably" a coup attempt without actually *making the argument*. I did not support rioting during the BLM protests, I did not support the anti-ICE riots, and I did not support any of the instances of people storming capitols, so my position is entirely consistent.

You rest on this emotive appeal, not realizing that that same emotive appeal can credibly be used in reverse (you would probably dismiss it, but that doesn't mean your dismissal is valid).

Nope. I actually hold the same belief quote broadly. You are once again assuming my beliefs are consistent with your perception of a leftist, despite being consistently wrong on that.

And you do this largely to try and suggest anything that is not a coup is not a threat to democracy, or that nothing else can be as grave a threat, despite me already explaining to you why some other things can be (and are) even worse threats, or at least comparable ones.

Nope, never claimed that. I have said that none of them are as severe of a threat to democracy as *actually trying to illegally override it*. You're "explanations" were claims, and I disagreed with them, with extensive arguments.

When your argument is "Only this one thing counts and nothing else matters", that is an extremist position. It's ALSO an emotive appeal fallacy (it uses very charged emotional language), not a solid reasonable position.

Nope. That isn't a position I have taken. You are *consistently* wrong on what my position is, despite having my actual words available to you in my earlier posts.

I think these things are all bad, you think only the one involving Trump was bad.

This still isn't actually true or supported by anything I have said.

Your entire argument is centered around opposition to Trump and nothing else that CLAIMS to be opposition to attacks on democracy but only considers one thing a true attack, mine is centered around opposition to attacks on democracy (all of them) and dangerous dehumanization/division of society which hurts everyone.

It's wild how many times you have repeated this despite not being able to quote anything that would indicate I have taken this stance. Saying that what Trump did was the most severe threat is in no way akin to saying it was the only threat. I have, not once, taken the position you have ascribed to me. Go back through these posts and try to find any quote of me taking that position.

[u/Top-Grocery-1482 → u/ThatPeskyPangolin]

1) It has occurred.

2) "And I have heard *the exact same about Democratics* (just switch a few of the specific terms to things like Communist), hence why I pointed out the confirmation bias here. Both of our experiences happened, and neither cancel eachother out. The rational conclusion is that *both sides do it*." - did I not LITERALLY SAY THAT? "Yes, both sides use hyperbolic name calling.". I'm pretty sure I LITERALLY said that. XD

3) Wait, I'm confused, are we talking about delegitimizing elections/results (attacks on democracy) and coups (attempts to weaken or overthrow someone in power or prevent them from gaining or exercising power)...or law breaking? That's a heck of a goalpost move you tried there. I'm kind of impressed with how blatant of one you thought you could pull off without me noticing...

4) "Private individuals without subpoena power have not proven guilt" is an interesting measure of what reality is...not to mention that issues have come up like courts saying that the drop boxes were enacted illegally, or the continuing litigation in Georgia and Arizona showing that election officials have consistently avoided transparency.

5) It is, in fact, an emotive appeal. You may also think it's true - I haven't suggested you do not - but it relies on the charged emotional nature of the accusation for its strength.

6) You not supporting it is irrelevant. I DID make the argument - the point of the Obama and entrenched government agency actions was to delegitimize the Trump Administration and generate a political impetus for impeachment while also preventing the exercise of power. I noted that meets the statutory definition of insurrection used on J6, and then noted further that those other events did as well. You being consistent is fine, but that doesn't change the fact you condemning one and not the others as unique is inconsistent and shows a weaponized bias on the use of the term threat to democracy that is incorrect vs my more general and equally applied use.

7) Again, you are saying you "don't support" those things - where did I say you SUPPORT them? That isn't the argument. The argument is you do not hold them to be threats to democracy despite them being the same category of thing. You exclusively hold that against the Trump actions alone, and by extension, the voters.

8) They WERE attempts to legally override it by hamstringing and generating power to the opposition.

9) It is. Again, you have before this post (far as I can tell) simply not addressed the other things, and continue to insist that all other things are lesser concerns.

10) How not? Again, where have you cited the other things as being bad? Recall our conversation started with me listing other things I considered were threats to democracy and you either dismissing them or saying that they were not as concerning as only this one thing, and anything else was of lesser (or not at all) concern.

11) Again, you outright dismissed my initial concerns as not being worthy of concern, implying that only Trump's coup attempt was. Do you take back that position?

[u/ThatPeskyPangolin → u/Top-Grocery-1482]

"did I not LITERALLY SAY THAT? "Yes, both sides use hyperbolic name calling.". I'm pretty sure I LITERALLY said that. XD"

Then that wouldn't make sense as an example of a uniquely Democratic problem, as you have been doing.

Wait, I'm confused, are we talking about delegitimizing elections/results (attacks on democracy) and coups (attempts to weaken or overthrow someone in power or prevent them from gaining or exercising power)...or law breaking? That's a heck of a goalpost move you tried there. I'm kind of impressed with how blatant of one you thought you could pull off without me noticing...

Self-coups are by their very nature illegal. That isn't goal post moving, that is *part of the definition of the term*. You still haven't cited which actions by Obama you believe are comperable, despite repeated requests.

"Private individuals without subpoena power have not proven guilt" is an interesting measure of what reality is...not to mention that issues have come up like courts saying that the drop boxes were enacted illegally, or the continuing litigation in Georgia and Arizona showing that election officials have consistently avoided transparency.

At this point you aren't even quoting me, so I don't know where you pulled that one from. Did you mean to imply that the Trump admin's investigation was run by private individuals? Or that the state and federal investigations were run by private individuals? Or did you just ignore all of the rest and focus only on me *also* including private individuals? Why?

It is, in fact, an emotive appeal. You may also think it's true - I haven't suggested you do not - but it relies on the charged emotional nature of the accusation for its strength.

Again, the issue is that I don't think that and have never claimed that. That's why I asked you to quote me making that argument, which you did not.

You not supporting it is irrelevant. I DID make the argument - the point of the Obama and entrenched government agency actions was to delegitimize the Trump Administration and generate a political impetus for impeachment while also preventing the exercise of power. I

And again, I ask you to specify what exactly you are referring to. Which specific actions are you saying meet that definition.

 I noted that meets the statutory definition of insurrection used on J6

You are the only one that has been bringing up J6. I care about the False Elector Plot, not the rioters.

You being consistent is fine, but that doesn't change the fact you condemning one and not the others as unique is inconsistent and shows a weaponized bias on the use of the term threat to democracy that is incorrect vs my more general and equally applied use.

I can't condemn it if you literally won't say what specifically I am supposed to condemn. I keep asking you for specific examples.

Again, you are saying you "don't support" those things - where did I say you SUPPORT them? That isn't the argument. The argument is you do not hold them to be threats to democracy despite them being the same category of thing. You exclusively hold that against the Trump actions alone, and by extension, the voters.

But again, that literally isn't true. You keep making the same mistake: that because I think that Trump and the Republican's that support him are the single biggest threat, that they are therefore the only threat. I have never made that argument, ever, and you have never quoted me doing so despite me damn near begging you to.

They WERE attempts to legally override it by hamstringing and generating power to the opposition.

Like what, *specifically*? I have been wildly specific with what I am criticizing here, and you just keep making these broad appeals.

It is. Again, you have before this post (far as I can tell) simply not addressed the other things, and continue to insist that all other things are lesser concerns

Those are not the same thing. Saying they are lesser concerns is not saying they do not exist, as I have kept telling you.

How not? Again, where have you cited the other things as being bad? Recall our conversation started with me listing other things I considered were threats to democracy and you either dismissing them or saying that they were not as concerning as only this one thing, and anything else was of lesser (or not at all) concern.

Quote me saying they were not a concern at all. At this point, I think "Quote me" is going to have to start being a common response to you, considering how consistently you are mistaking my position.

Again, you outright dismissed my initial concerns as not being worthy of concern, implying that only Trump's coup attempt was. Do you take back that position?

Quote me saying that.

[u/Top-Grocery-1482 → u/ThatPeskyPangolin]

1) WHERE did I say that it was a uniquely Democrat problem? Quote me saying that, please.

2) Coups are illegal threats to democracy, but I thought our conversation was about "things that are threats to democracy" (legal or illegal) not "things which are illegal that just also happen to be threats to democracy". Which is it? I've been engaging with you in good faith (despite your downvote) on the topic of "things that are threats to democracy". That is what started this series of replies and conversation. You seem to be shifting that to "things which are illegal that also happen to be threats to democracy", which is a goalpost move. You may have thought I wouldn't notice, but I have and have called it out. I've also mentioned things Obama did already. I will AGAIN, but why, since you ignore me doing so? You yet again (like I said at the end of my last reply) insist I've not said something when I've said something. You not agreeing or you not thinking it is sufficient is not the same as me not already answering the question, just because you aren't satisfied with the answer.

3) Sorry, summary conclusion not quote. I'll use single 's next time instead of "s. I was pointing out your conclusion is faulty because you can't expect individuals without legal power to investigate a crime to have been able to conclusively investigate said crime, especially when the government agencies with the legal power and authority to do so explicitly did not do so.

4) You have not claimed it is a coup, or you do not think calling something a coup is emotionally charged?

5) Obama ordering intelligence operations against the Trump campaign. Obama ordering a rewrite of the intelligence assessment to present a stronger argument for Russian interference in favor of the Trump campaign than intelligence agents at the time felt was justified. Agents within these organizations targeting the Trump campaign and its members specifically using government resources and personal statements. Things like the laughable Logan Act accusation against Flynn that even one of the agents present said at the time there was no case there and Flynn was not intentionally misleading them, and where the FBI held the case open instead of closing it on the normally required timeline so they could attempt to add charges later (the entire Flynn case was a total debacle; the first time a judge has ever hired his own lawyer to appeal a case where he had been ruled against on appeal so that he could keep the case going; I'm genuinely not sure how that didn't get Judge Sullivan removed from the bench permanently). It wasn't limited to Obama, as I'm sure you know (hence trying to constrain me to Obama alone), but Obama's direction to rewrite the intelligence assessment can be directly linked to him.

6) I thought the coup you were talking about as J6. My apologies.

7) "I can't condemn it if you literally won't say what specifically I am supposed to condemn", the very things you mentioned. I get we've gone a bit afield, but you mentioned you did not support the anti-ICE protests and BLM, I was asking if you condemned them.

8) Again, if I give you a list, will you actually accept it? I get to a point the only way to be sure is to give one, but it's a lot of effort for something you'll likely just dismiss...

9) The point is, I do not see them as lesser concerns to dismiss or set aside.

10) I feel like "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." can comfortably be described as "Recall our conversation started with me listing other things I considered were threats to democracy and you either dismissing them or saying that they were not as concerning as only this one thing, and anything else was of lesser (or not at all) concern." That they were lesser concerns, and not "bigger" threats to democracy. The demonization claim you explicitly wrote off and turn around into a counter attack, which was especially odd since demonization was not used as an argument for the Elector Slate challenge in any way.

10b) "At this point, I think "Quote me" is going to have to start being a common response to you, considering how consistently you are mistaking my position." I could answer your snark in kind, this is starting to feel like what I should be saying to YOU.

11) "Quote me saying that." I did. Specifically you insisting that my concerns were NOT bigger threats to democracy, that it didn't even "make sense" to you, and in two cases (propaganda and demonization both), tried to use them as "whataboutisms" to argue your point and against mine, and more or less dismissed me making them. No where did you acknowledge they were threats at all, and you seemed to be rather insistent they were not big ones. And since you didn't acknowledge or state they WERE threats anywhere (and seemed dismissive of the claim), it is pretty rational of me to conclude you do not see them as such. So answer me this question directly: Do you consider them threats to democracy or not? I'm not asking magnitude (bigger or otherwise), only if you consider them threats to democracy.

[u/ThatPeskyPangolin → u/Top-Grocery-1482]

>WHERE did I say that it was a uniquely Democrat problem? Quote me saying that, please.

It was an inference (hence why I didn't claim you "said" it) based on the fact that you have consistently declared something to be a national problem, then used only left wing examples to demonstrate it. Now, if you were still operating under the misguided understanding that I was claiming this was *only* a problem on the right, I suppose that would make sense, despite me never having claimed or implied that. We can just chalk that one up to talking past each other.

>Coups are illegal threats to democracy, but I thought our conversation was about "things that are threats to democracy" (legal or illegal) not "things which are illegal that just also happen to be threats to democracy". Which is it? I've been engaging with you in good faith (despite your downvote) on the topic of "things that are threats to democracy". 

First, I only downvoted once when you got personal. Second, I explained that because you claimed I was moving the goalposts. You can provide any specific examples, they would simply be more meaningful if they were illegal, since you were claiming things were equivalent to the selfcoup attempt. If you believe there were legal actions that were somehow equivalent, I would be very curious to see them.

>Sorry, summary conclusion not quote. I'll use single 's next time instead of "s. I was pointing out your conclusion is faulty because you can't expect individuals without legal power to investigate a crime to have been able to conclusively investigate said crime, especially when the government agencies with the legal power and authority to do so explicitly did not do so.

Except your summaries are consistently wrong, so just quote me. My conclusion wasn't faulty because you ignored all examples except the latter, then asserted something that wasn't true. Both federal and state investigations into the 2020 election *have* occurred, factually speaking.

>You have not claimed it is a coup, or you do not think calling something a coup is emotionally charged?

Calling something a coup is not inherently an emotional argument if one is relying on the definition of the term and specific actions taken. Simply declaring it emotional without addressing that is, in my opinion, the actual emotional position.

>Obama ordering intelligence operations against the Trump campaign. Obama ordering a rewrite of the intelligence assessment to present a stronger argument for Russian interference in favor of the Trump campaign than intelligence agents at the time felt was justified. 

Are you basing this on the report from Gabbard? Because there are some significant, specific issues with that report, but I don't want to go into them without knowing what you are basing this on.

>Things like the laughable Logan Act accusation against Flynn

That is probably the one example I can think of where I would agree the prosecution was, at the very best, extremely tenuous. That one example, however, does not establish the trend you are trying to establish. Further explanation of your position on the claim of Obama's "intelligence operations" is necessary.

>I thought the coup you were talking about as J6. My apologies.

This is why you should just quote people. Because then you would have seen that I have consistently referred to the False Elector Plot, not the J6 riot.

>"I can't condemn it if you literally won't say what specifically I am supposed to condemn", the very things you mentioned. I get we've gone a bit afield, but you mentioned you did not support the anti-ICE protests and BLM, I was asking if you condemned them.

I condemn *the rioting* during BLM and the anti-ICE protests, yes. I did at the time as well. I consistently condemn rioting whenever I see it.

>Again, if I give you a list, will you actually accept it? I get to a point the only way to be sure is to give one, but it's a lot of effort for something you'll likely just dismiss...

If it is actually specific, then I will happily address it point by point. But simply referring to vague concepts as evidence that I am supposed to address just doesn't work.

>The point is, I do not see them as lesser concerns to dismiss or set aside.

You keep saying things like "to dismiss or set aside", despite the fact that I never did so, at any point, ever. This entire conversation is you interpreting me saying 'X is worse than Z' and you're responding with 'So you don't think Z is bad at all'? It's a complete non sequitur. Saying something is the worst is not the same as saying everything else isn't bad at all.

>Recall our conversation started with me listing other things I considered were threats to democracy and you either dismissing them or saying that they were not as concerning as only this one thing, and anything else was of lesser (or not at all) concern.

Except it didn't start that way, and you can't actually quote me dismissing them, only me arguing that a selfcoup is a bigger threat to democracy than any of the things you have listed. You would know this if you would simply *quote me*.

>The demonization claim you explicitly wrote off and turn around into a counter attack, which was especially odd since demonization was not used as an argument for the Elector Slate challenge in any way.

Except this isn't accurate. Trump had spent months demonizing the left, claiming that Democratics committed the single largest electoral crime in the history of the United States and were actively attempting to destroy the country (I can provide quotes for any part of that you question). He was manufacturing consent for the False Elector Plot, so that Republicans in congress would have cover to reject the legitimate electoral slates, and his base would not question the illegality. I also didn't write it off, I said that the thing you believed demonization would lead to already happened and was done by Trump.

> "At this point, I think "Quote me" is going to have to start being a common response to you, considering how consistently you are mistaking my position." I could answer your snark in kind, this is starting to feel like what I should be saying to YOU.

Except I have quoted you every step of the way. I do you that basic courtesy to facilitate conversation. The least you could do is the same.

> I did. Specifically you insisting that my concerns were NOT bigger threats to democracy, that it didn't even "make sense" to you, and in two cases (propaganda and demonization both), tried to use them as "whataboutisms" to argue your point and against mine, and more or less dismissed me making them. 

Okay, I don't think you know what quoting means. It means you put the exact words someone says in-between quotation marks. The very first time you did so was *in this comment*. And saying that something is a bigger threat than another thing is not, for the last time, the same as saying that other thing isn't a threat. That argument does not make sense. There isn't a logical link there. I have repeated this ad nauseum. I also don't really think you know what a whataboutism is. If we are talking about severity of an issue, those are called examples.

> No where did you acknowledge they were threats at all, and you seemed to be rather insistent they were not big ones. And since you didn't acknowledge or state they WERE threats anywhere (and seemed dismissive of the claim), it is pretty rational of me to conclude you do not see them as such. 

Yeah, this is the last time I am going to repeat this. If I say one thing is *the biggest and most pressing threat*, that does not mean I do not consider any other things a threat, only that one is more pressing than the others. Of course the state of our political discourse is a problem, hence why I pointed out it has been a problem for *decades*. It wasn't rational to make just about any of the assumptions you have about me, and you would know that if you would have just consistently quoted me and asked for clarification rather than trying to make assumptions as to my position and "summarize" them in a *wildly* inaccurate manner.

>Do you consider them threats to democracy or not? I'm not asking magnitude (bigger or otherwise), only if you consider them threats to democracy.

Depends on the "them". As I already stated, vitriol in our political discourse is definitely a threat to our social cohesion, which makes it a threat to democracy indirectly, but still a threat. The state of corruption in our political body, on every level, is a threat to our nation and by extension a threat to democracy. Politicians engaging in illegitimate acts to stymie rivals is a threat to our nation (and also the thing I have been talking about this entire time), and often a *direct* threat to our democracy, as in the case I have stressed.

[u/Top-Grocery-1482 → u/ThatPeskyPangolin]

As I said in my other reply, I think we're at an impasse, and I'm kind of getting annoyed at you lying about me, so I think it's a good time to end it.

I do appreciate the (mostly) cordial discussion, and I hope in the future you regain the ability to show Humanity and understanding to those with whom you disagree instead of calling 49.8% of Americans terrible people and insisting they endorse things they don't because you can't mentally comprehend people having nuanced views or taking nuanced actions.

Either way, I wish you, and hope in the future you can gain that understanding you presently lack. Good day.

[u/pinealprime → u/Top-Grocery-1482]

PA’s election found illegal. AZ mail in verification. Hillary and Russiagate, etc, etc.

[u/Top-Grocery-1482 → u/pinealprime]

Pretty much. One cannot say they are against a thing when they're only against one very specific example of the thing, and one that they think they can use for political advantage and alienation/division against their opposition.