Andrew Sullivan: This is very Weimar
-
@Mik said in Andrew Sullivan: This is very Weimar:
You said he had a causal role. Do you have anything to back that up other than you don't like him?
I didn’t mean literally the proximate cause of the initial protest, obviously that was the Floyd death. I mean that he personally as well as his actions and words were a key part of the very complex set of circumstances that has fueled their intensity and duration.
His divisiveness obviously played a role in the political tensions leading up to it (Horace agrees here with the causal chain, but assigns moral responsibility for his divisiveness to the outgroup).
But once they started you could think of myriad ways he could have dialed down the temperature or tried to give the protesters a voice. Heck, even inviting some of them to join a bipartisan group to make recommendations for municipal, state and federal rule changes. Presidents do that kind of thing all the time. It’s kind of what politics is. Instead he antagonized with words and deeds.
It just didn’t have to be this way.
-
-
@jon-nyc said in Andrew Sullivan: This is very Weimar:
His divisiveness obviously played a role in the political tensions leading up to it (Horace agrees here with the causal chain, but assigns moral responsibility for his divisiveness to the outgroup).
And you simultaneously revel in the TDS orgy while taking no moral responsibility for it, because well of course good people hate Trump, I mean duh, it shouldn't need justification.
-
Here’s what I’m not doing, largely because it’s impossible:
-
laying out a specific causal chain from Trumps actions to the behavior of several million protesters and a few thousand rioters.
-
claiming that I know what the mitigation effects would be for particular actions that trump could have taken
What I am doing is saying that
(1) his general divisiveness feeds this
(2) his words and deeds have served to fan the flames
(3). Different words and deeds could have cooled the flames or at least fanned them less
-
-
jon, it's ok and par for the course that you actually have no interesting points to make here, and are really only attempting to establish the phenotype of a clear headed calm appraiser of the situation. We are all as impressed with it as you are. Now please feel free to go eat lunch.
-
I agree it’s vacuous. Stop saying that.
Maybe phrase it as ‘Trump fanned the flames in word and deed because he’s not up to the job of being presidential. He’s just the leader of a tribe’.
And then maybe take some responsibility for why you guys elected someone like that.
-
@jon-nyc said in Andrew Sullivan: This is very Weimar:
I agree it’s vacuous. Stop saying that.
Maybe phrase it as ‘Trump fanned the flames in word and deed because he’s not up to the job of being presidential. He’s just the leader of a tribe’.
And then maybe take some responsibility for why you guys elected someone like that.
Yes please let me join in on the flurry of good willed responsibility taking as proposed by responsibility taker in chief jon-nyc. It's not his fault that he's never done or thought anything wrong, it's just how perfect people are. Why can't TNCR and WTF understand that?
-
Are ad hominems another thing you take no responsibility for jon? I mean your lack of integrity for being a guy who is more than willing to get down and dirty may be such that you're unwilling to even admit that you throw stones yourself. So I'm curious if you're capable of admitting that. The innocent princess act might be bought by a couple people here but the number is diminishing.
