(Thought this might be useful for the learning centre and Amity asked me to do it. So, there you go.) — Baden

It is more than useful, it is bloody brilliant.
My original request can be found here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/22/currently-reading/p23

A: I think you should write an article on 'How to Write an Article'.
B: Actually, I've started a blog on various aspects of writing on my site, including how to write academic articles. What I might do here is write an article on argumentation (claims, reasons, warrants, and evidence etc).

Baden - well, words fail me. He actually killed 2 birds with one stone - hmmm, perhaps rephrase that.
No avian cruelty involved.

The OP is a masterpiece in Effective Writing.
How do I know that ? Apart from the obvious joy in reading information so well structured and understandable...
Well, from following his Sources link and then some.
The leads include various handouts on writing e.g. like composing effective paragraphs. Worthwhile downloading.

College, E. (2019). LibGuides: Research Skills Tutorial: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Information Sources. Subjectguides.esc.edu . Accessed 7 Nov. 2019. — Baden

https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/process/

What wowed me even more was how Baden applied the lessons learned by using a significant example.
Currently on my mind, from TPF discussion and the travelogue series 'the Americas' - racial discrimination and imprisonment.

Examples of Claims
Sociological (broad): Systemic racism still exists in the United States.
Significance and Relevance of Claims

If the goal is to have people engage with your claim then it must be of some significance to them. There’s little point in making claims that are generally accepted or are of so little import that nobody cares that you made them. — Baden

So, thank you for this. This inspirational piece makes me come over all aspirational and smiley :cool:
The Learning Centre is a wonderful TPF resource. I wonder if it should be given a more prominent place.
Let it fly high !
:100: :sparkle:

I try to keep that stuff separate — Baden

That's a shame. However, I understand the need to keep personal stuff separate. God knows you don't want to be deluged by fan mail :hearts:

I've started writing something along the lines suggested though, so I'll keep you posted — Baden

Look forward to reading it, thanks.

Actually, I've started a blog on various aspects of writing on my site, including how to write academic articles. — Baden

Didn't know that. Is there a link to this on TPF ?

Check out all this attention. Banno eat your heart out. :wink: — Baden

You guys :roll:

What I might do here is write an article on argumentation (claims, reasons, warrants, and evidence etc) — Baden

Excellent :up:
Make it so, number one.

Anyhow, we're off-topic, so I'll shut up now — Baden

Well, not really and please don't.

While I enjoy the lists of current reads, I like it even more when there's a bit of a conversation or review. Like here:

you gotta tell me how you like the Brown book.
— StreetlightX
Finished it a few days back and really enjoyed it... — Maw

Writing a TPF Book Review article would be a bit more challenging but would be easy to find, informative, insightful and inspiring.
How about it...?

I have noticed a denial of and failure to comprehend the depth of the crisis we have been plunged into. This became particularly acute during the row in the House of Commons the day the commons opened again after the illegal prorogation of parliament. Let me illustrate, Geoffrey Cox and Boris Johnson, both people with great booming voices of a privelidged tone. Stormed the chamber (metaphorically) in a contemptuous aggressive tone, accusing the members of trying anything to prevent the government in its efforts to respect the referendum (an untruth). — Punshhh

I agree wholeheartedly. This episode shocked me more than I can say. This should be played back along with images of that Lying Tory. Go viral. It seems that works...

Even now people are saying that the dishonest behaviour is from all sides and are failing to hold the bullies to account. While in the meantime the bullies carry on damaging our constitution, our country, our and their integrity and creating more crisis. — Punshhh

Yes. And the media are playing their usual part. Plans drawn up to influence the electorate.
Passive consumption.

...This passive way of obtaining information means the instant emotional impact of an amusing meme or a shocking headline is likely to spread far wider and faster than any policy-heavy political speech – which helps explains the potency of an image of Jacob Rees-Mogg reclining on a bench in the House of Commons.

..In reality it’s not much more sophisticated than a Colgate ad – you need a really great message that connects with people and you need to pay to get it in front of as many people as you can.”

However, he insisted no advertising can counteract widespread negative coverage: “If a major figure from outside politics – a Stormzy, for example – is using their huge online reach to speak with an authentic voice and mobilise their followers against you, then that can be worth as much or more than great ads, good targeting and a really big budget. Parties also have to accept that almost all of that will be happening completely outside their control, and it adds a huge degree of unpredictability to the online battle.” — Jim Waterson

...for my editing work (Chicago, MLA, APA, Turabian etc). They're very fine grained and differ on minutiae depending on the field etc. Thanks for the compliment anyhow — Baden

Ah, OK - so you provide professional editing services for all sorts. Consider me even more impressed.

Had a quick look at Turabian. I note that it is used in journal articles and essays as well as for theses, dissertations and research papers. Apparently offering more readability.

The Turabian style of writing a bibliography in the notes-bibliography mode is perfect for humanities, like arts, languages, literature and history.

So, let's just say that there might be a few generous intellectuals on or off TPF...
And imagine that they have a burning desire to write an article for TPF.
Why wouldn't they ?
This would be a polished, perfect product; a proud upstanding piece of philosophy :cool:
Then we could all tear it to shreds :naughty: ...er... I mean enjoy and comment :halo:

I think you should write an article on 'How to Write an Article'.
You know ya wanna :wink:

And a bunch of grammar/style guides for work. — Baden

Such as ?
Do you really need them - I thought you already a talented writer and educator ?

Sologamy

"sologamy”, the act of marrying oneself. “It was a slightly tongue-in-cheek statement against the stigma of being single... — Lizzie Cernik

The power of ownship.
Self-partnership.

...an increasing number of “single-positive” people are rejecting the notion that true love is the only path to happiness. Just this week, the actor Emma Watson told Vogue how a “bloody influx of subliminal messaging” had left her “stressed and anxious” because she was heading into her 30s without a husband and baby. Now, however, she is “very happy” to be single. “I call it being self-partnered.” — As above

At least that's my idea of a utopian forum — uncanni

Thanks for the peek into your travel bag :smile:
Community is fine, as is mutual understanding.

It is how we reach understanding, if not consensus, that is important.
I have benefited greatly from such generous individuals but also from those who get my dander up. It is the spark-off which ignites any ashying passion. The irritating itch which keeps me coming back. We decide what is worth our energies...on our journey we can travel light or heavy.
The forum and the mods allow space for both.

Sometimes, I think we are lured into careless, combative language. Perhaps the nature of argumentation in philosophy. It can discourage a more gentle exploration from those with less certainty.
Perhaps forgetting that the beating of intellectual minds stems from the heart...

I hope those creatives and generous intellectuals who have left, for whatever reason, can find a way to return. But only when it is feels good for them...and worthwhile.

Interesting indeed how you jump from my opinion to the extreme opposite — uncanni

I was trying to understand what you meant by 'intellectual generosity'.
I should have stopped with that one question.
But my mind took me to the other end of the spectrum...usually the balance is midway. Is the forum skew whiff ?

Is being a generous intellectual the same as having 'intellectual generosity' ?
Or is that just another intellectual game my mind is playing...

we need to figure out how to not be such bigheaded jerks.
— Terrapin Station

I wouldn't say that intellectual generosity is a hallmark of this forum. — uncanni

Interesting. What do you mean by 'intellectual generosity' ?
What would you say is 'a hallmark of this forum' ?
Intellectual selfishness ?

1. I recently ordered Kripke's Reference and Existence and 2. feel like a fucking moron for not being able to even read some of it. 3. Infuriating shit in my little world.

4. I have a question to you to just spark a debate. Is the number 2 an empty name, and if not what does it signify? — Wallows

1. Why ?
2. Why ?
3. Why ?
4. Why ?

3. A wider perspective might help.
Integrating the bigger, real world so as to inspire more interesting questions.
Like how can people trafficking be more profitable than drug trafficking ? Track the human condition(s), the power, the real frustrations and obstacles.
The hidden worlds we know nothing about...

I found this latest episode on 'the Americas' an amazing learning experience. It links in with TPF discussions re Trump, capitalism, walls, what people risk to gain what they hope will be a better life. The dangers and hopes of a border patrol unit...windmills. A little girl who wants to learn.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000b1k0/the-americas-with-simon-reeve-series-1-episode-4

'Simon travels through Texas and down the length of Mexico. In Texas, Simon joins the US Border Patrol, who constantly pick up migrants who have illegally crossed the dangerous Rio Grande river in search of a new life in the United States. In the midst of this humanitarian crisis, Simon meets one woman who risks her life to take vital supplies across the border to stranded migrants on the Mexican side of the border in one of the most violent cities in Mexico. Much of the city of Reynosa is in the grip of a powerful criminal organisation, the Gulf Cartel. Simon visits the elite police force tasked with taking on an enemy that uses high-tech surveillance and an arsenal of US-manufactured weapons to control the border city. 

In southern Mexico, Simon visits Chiapas, a state with spectacular scenery, culture and history. Chiapas is also home to the largest indigenous population in Mexico, who trace their ancestry to the ancient Mayans. In the depths of the rainforest, Simon explores the Mayan city of Yaxchilan, once a thriving hub of a hugely sophisticated civilisation that prospered long before European settlers arrived in the Americas. Simon discovers that today’s indigenous communities have been marginalised, and many complain they are treated as second-class citizens in Mexico. Until the middle of the 20th century, the Lacandon people had little contact with the outside world. Most still live in the forest like their Mayan ancestors, but as Simon finds out, their beautiful home could be lost to logging and farming in less than a decade.'

No shit. Been learning philosophy since 2005 on online forums. That makes it 14 years of interacting with people.
— Wallows

Yes, my point was to just learn the things you want in the dialectical manner you prefer; but perhaps get more structured about it. I.e. do what your doing but at the next level of intensity and challenge. — boethius

Wallows has been asking for and receiving advice for as long as. He has been around long enough to know and predict all the likely replies.
You made some excellent points and suggestions but look at the response.
It's an addictive pattern.
The continual comparison. Now comparing turnover rates between the old forum and this one.
It is a small world.
People will come and go. Here's one example of what happens after a while:
People read and think about whether they feel like answering. They might pause to reflect on the purpose and value of so doing. The urge passes. People get fed up with same old, same old and take a break. But why then would anyone expect anything to be different on return. Why would anyone expect something other than the same people squabbling over their intransigent opinions ?
People might want to believe that they can make a difference and believe that they are different from all the rest.
What makes a philosophy forum special and a great learning experience?

Substantive post worthy of a separate thread so it doesn't get lost in this tangle.
Will save it for a later chew over.
Currently taking time out for a quiet re-read of Marcus and life :smile:

Nevertheless,, this is precisely our situation: it is the formation of different "foreign bodies" within our societies through various gradations of hatred: dehumanization, labeling, delegitimization, and intolerance. Essentially, the true borders are not the outer ones, but the invisible internal barriers, so that the extreme partisanship has been advancing. — Number2018

I am not sure that issues such as labelling and intolerance are particularly 'foreign'. They are part of human nature. However, when they are increasingly manipulated to extremes where individuals are dehumanised by generic labelling this needs to be challenged. Politics is being dominated by negative influences and barriers.

In the UK, we have Johnson who acted unlawfully in the prorogation of parliament. The extreme Tory contingent show no signs of remorse, indeed they doubled down. More to follow, given the Queen's Speech. And that's another story of elite pomp and ceremony increasingly being shown to be irrelevant.
Parliamentary procedures are shown to be tedious, lengthy, ridiculous affairs. This is what should be addressed. However, it will be used in the forthcoming election as a People v Parliament issue. The Tories speaking for the so-called 'will of the people' against an undemocratic parliament.

The 'invisible internal barriers' might just relate to our manipulated mindset. Lack of knowledge amidst the wall of lies creates increasing division. Black and white gut reactions, rather than an objective look at policies and implications. Nothing new here - just a deepening darkness...where the inflated egos of political 'strongmen' are joining up across the world to play wargames with no concern for the human consequences. Case in point - Trump's casual transactional phone call which allowed a war to re-erupt in the Middle East.

you tacitly assume that one side is more responsible for
the current crises than the other. Similarly, when Timothy Snyder in his interview tries to lay out his vision of Trump’s phenomenon - in addition to his academic qualities and analytic resources applied, he involves some rhetorical arguments and personal judgments. So, his attempt should be reduced to a level of another partisan intellectual project. In the current hysteric atmosphere, taking a partisan position prevents a deeper understanding and blocks the conditions of a dialogue. — Number2018

I don't assume anything. There is more going on that I am ignorant of. However, I do see what has been happening with regard to Brexit. It is clear that this is primarily a Tory agenda and they are responsible for pushing it to extremes.
As to Snyder, his project might well be seen as a partisan intellectual project. There will always be an element of subjectivity in any analysis. I don't accept the conclusion that it blocks the conditions of dialogue. Analysis and writing can be reductive in the sense of giving focus to a particular perspective.
Dialogue is blocked when people carelessly dismiss other points of view. Or have had enough of the conversation, for whatever reason...

Useful dialogue can start when we look at particular real life concerns.
I have been watching Simon Reeve's 'the Americas' where I was struck by this segment:

" In a country with the highest incarceration rate in the world, Simon’s final destination on this leg of the journey is a Colorado town that depends almost entirely on eleven different prisons. Simon witnesses how inmates are put to work for the state, and how virtual reality is being used to prepare long-term prisoners for life on the outside."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0009dj7/the-americas-with-simon-reeve-series-1-episode-2

It's Big Business.
The Tories seek to emulate this in the UK. It is draconian. And yes, the justiciary can be part of the problem which people can relate to. The injustices of the elite. The system is not perfect but leaders actively ignoring and attacking the law whenever it goes against them is not a good sign. Not recognising the legitimacy of the court when e.g. one is impeached, where does that lead ? To prison ?

Chris Daw QC, a criminal and fraud expert, tweeted: “Make no mistake, the current Tory approach to crime and punishment is just dangerous, populist electioneering. Nowhere in the free world do longer and longer prison sentences do anything good for society.”

The government’s emphasis on ramping up punishments was contrasted by many commentators with its failure to pay for judges to hear backlogs of cases and the protracted underfunding of the justice system.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/oct/14/lynch-mob-politics-experts-denounce-plans-for-longer-jail-terms

Yes, labels matter, fuck wit. I seem to have labeled one of you 'fuck wit'. In this case it is unimportant because I am unimportant — unenlightened

:smile: That would be me. And yes, it is unimportant not because you are unimportant but because I am not affected by it. When a child is labelled as being 'slow' or a 'half wit' then there can be long term consequences. Whole lives can be ruined by labelling. So, of course, the use of labels matters.

My question was related to the adjectives 'fascistic' v 'protofascistic' and how significant were the actual differences between them.

Here is original exchange:

Should we consider it as a fascistic or proto-fascistic attack against a democratic institution?
— Number2018

I don't know. What do you think ?
Does the label matter ?
Arguably, the contempt for and attacks on democratic institutions, the rule of law; incitements to mob violence; attacks on the press, etc. are similar enough to warrant concern. — Amity

Recently, the GOP Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has accused Nancy Pelosi that she started impeachment against Trump in an unconstitutional manner. Should we consider it as a fascistic or proto-fascistic attack against a democratic institution? — Number2018

I don't know. What do you think ?
Does the label matter ?
Arguably, the contempt for and attacks on democratic institutions, the rule of law; incitements to mob violence; attacks on the press, etc. are similar enough to warrant concern.

Either way, I'm done here. I've enjoyed the discussion. I think @unenlightened hits the nail on the head.

It is the behaviour of individuals, political policies that can be described as 'deplorable', at the very least.
It is how we deal with this, that is the question.

I see the executive attacking the judiciary I see outright lying pass as good tactics and so on. I see a pattern. — unenlightened

As do I and many others.

It's a pattern, a heap of things inching in the direction of arbitrary, divisive and unaccountable rule — unenlightened

So, what can be done ? I've been reading Snyder. Amongst other things, he advises 1:1 conversation.
I have tended not to engage politically with relatives who have voted for Brexit. Many families have been spilt in both UK and America.
How can we persuade if people won't listen...
How can we make people see the similarities between us...the humanity.
When politicians attempt to dehumanise by language...
Address each concern by providing facts ?

It looks like Snyder mistakenly substitutes the status of a “fact” in scientific research for the use of a “fact” in contemporary politics. Any fact, spoken by a politician and taken by mass media, loses its character of an index of the apparent and transparent truth. It can be immediately challenged by a counter fact, replaced by an adjacent fact, distorted by a fact from a different area, shifted to a conflicting context, and/or confronted by a hostile, affectively charged commentary. — Number2018

So, I haven't returned to the Ch4 interview to check that out, yet.
However, I have looked more into what Snyder has to say, and his background.
Here is an interview and a transcript which I have just skimmed over.
It covers points about facts, media, agenda, German history, and issues warnings and practical advice in a potential slide towards tyranny.

...20 key lessons that can help the United States avoid descending into authoritarianism. “I was trying to get out front and give people very practical day-to-day things that they could do,” Snyder says. “What stood behind all of that was a lifetime of working on the worst chapters of European history, a sense of how things can go very wrong.” — Timothy Snyder interview

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/5/30/on_tyranny_yale_historian_timothy_snyder

Truth and countertruth. Facts and counterfacts. 'Affectively charged commentary'.
Yes. All the the spin can make us dizzy, confused, crazy. And that is the idea.
To ramp up the divisions. Create conditions for civil unrest and then...
Politicians using the rhetoric of war is worse than calling people 'deplorable' but that is where it starts.
We need to watch our language.
Challenge and call out the lies. And that is what good journalism and interviewers do.
And just possibly philosophers...

Next movie starts soon...

...the political establishment has lost its touch with the vast masses of ordinary people in the US and the UK. So, elites have stopped to express the masses’ concerns. Bat mass does not speak itself; it speaks through its representatives. — Number2018

Yes. But who are the 'elites' ? Parliamentarians, the representatives, are supposed to speak for the electorate.They are being attacked by another kind of 'elite' within; the lying, extremist Tory who pretend to speak for the people. They express outrage that the 'will of the people' is being denied. There will be an election soon and I fear their rhetoric will win.

The embedded video shows the apparent moral outrage. Quite the performance by Attorney General Geoffrey Cox. I watched Parliament Live that day. Never to be forgotten.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49826524

But back to Brexiteers being decried as deplorables or ignorant or racists - clearly not all who voted for this are any of those things. Some are, just as in their opposites. The Trump core can be seen as following Trump because they like what they hear. They appear to thrive in the mass hysteria.
Does that make them deplorable, despicable individuals ?

I think it is a big mistake to use such terminology. Who is demonising who ?
Not all Trump voters were 'core'. Not all Brexìteers are hard right extremists.

I think that ignorance does play a huge part in all of this. Lack of real knowledge and experience.
I include myself - am I deplorable?

All allegations of fascistic transformations, and of destroying democratic institutions have not been verified yet. — Number2018

I meant to address this part earlier but ran out of steam :smile:
I like the 'yet'.
I think the point is that there are fascist elements and trends.
Democratic institutions are at risk. I am thinking of recent events in the UK.
Following the court decisions on the prorogation of Parliament, there were hostile accusations against both Parliament and the judiciary.
There are extreme right wing forces gathering, using similar tactics and chipping away...

And more of the consequences of a Trump phone call:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/11/trump-deal-erdogan-lethal-consequences-ukraine-syria

Trump’s Ukraine call could get him impeached – but his Syria betrayal is worse
The US president’s transactional approach to the world around him poses a grave threat.
- Jonathan Freedland

The second call was Sunday’s conversation with the president of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. This time it was Trump from whom a “favour” was sought. Erdoğan urged Trump to remove a small contingent of US troops from along the Turkish-Syrian border, where they had acted as a kind of tripwire, preventing Turkey from attacking its longtime enemy, the Kurds, in northeastern Syria. Trump agreed, and within hours Turkey was unleashing its full might on the Kurds...

...Those of us far away can have a more selfish anxiety, too. One of the tasks that had fallen to the Kurds was the imprisoning of former Isis fighters, preventing them returning to combat. Now the Kurds’ limited resources will be too stretched: they can’t both defend themselves from the Turks and act as jailers for a group of Isis fighters, their families and followers that together number 70,000. This is why, says Ross, “Isis prisoners are jubilant – jubilant – at the Turkish invasion,” seeing it as the harbinger of their liberation.

When asked if all these Isis men might now escape and pose a threat elsewhere, Trump’s response was telling. “Well, they’re going to be escaping to Europe. That’s where they want to go.” Meaning if, thanks to me, Isis terrorists are now free to shoot people in Paris or blow up buses in London, that’s not my problem.

And that's not taking into account civilians being attacked and having to flee from the continual bombardment. Chaos unleashed.
So much for the War against Terror...

There is some overlap with the Trump thread which speaks to his behaviour.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2928/donald-trump-all-general-trump-conversations-here/p206

This from @StreetlightX :

"Less than a day after President Donald Trump bragged to supporters at a campaign-style rally in Minnesota Thursday that he was working hard to bring U.S. soldiers home from foreign wars, the Pentagon announced Friday that 1,800 troops and advanced weapons systems have been ordered to Saudi Arabia"

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/10/11/less-24-hours-after-saying-time-bring-em-home-trump-orders-1800-us-troops-saudi

The question is: does it even matter to his core voters ? Do they even see that they are being played ? Even if they did, they would make excuses for their Saviour. How much knowledge do they have of global events or politics?

Does even Trump know or care about the consequences of a single phone call or tweet...

Here is just one example:

https://www.channel4.com/news/inside-northern-syria-five-islamic-state-militants-break-out-of-prison-after-shelling

A bit of background:
https://www.channel4.com/news/people-see-this-as-an-open-invitation-to-commit-genocide-and-ethnic-cleansing-dr-janroj-yilmaz-keles-on-usas-withdrawal-of-troops-from-syria

It is not foolish or unfair to make such comparisons and ask such questions; it is the utmost folly not to. Every leader should have to defend himself and his every policy decision against the charge of being tyrannosaurus-ish, of being cruel and inhuman, because every human is capable of inhumanity. — unenlightened

Exactly. Well said.

In his first campaign stop since the inquiry was announced, the US president and a 20,000-capacity crowd staged a formidable show of defiance at a basketball arena in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Trump mesmerised his fans for 102 minutes with a verbal cannon of conspiracy theories, blatant falsehoods, profane insults and anti-refugee bigotry.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/11/trump-minneapolis-rally-biden
— David Smith

This account of Trump’s rally confirms that his base is indeed comprised of deplorable and “unspeakable” people. — Number2018

This article which includes links is worthy of a read.
However, it's not just a written account, there is an embedded video ( 2.48 mins ) of the 'highlights'.

As @Benkei noted earlier, it is important that we look at Trump's behaviour.
This rally is only a small part of his overall style. He is a hate preacher. Here he stirs up the already converted. His core.

The warm-up includes a return to the 'Lock her up !' mob chant. Only this time it is 'Lock him up!'.

He includes his core in his global game of warfare monopoly in a 3 part multiple choice question.
Whimsical foreign policy. He lies again; using the rhetoric of ending wars when he is actually doing the very opposite.

He singles out a female, Muslim opponent.
His depiction of the Democrats as...well...watch the video...
Or if there is a longer version out there, please share.

What is deplorable is that this kind of political campaigning is seen as normal.
Hate preachers and followers riled to violent emotions; armed with guns.

From the OP. How many posters actually watched the 'Deplorables' ?
@Maw certainly did and gave a substantial analysis. As did @praxis.
Others also kept clear heads. While some just nip in and out to amuse themselves.

We are looking at why people voted for, and will vote again for Trump.
Edit : Also, Brexit.

I have a humble desire: that we understand what led people to vote the way they did, rather than dismiss them. Their concerns should be ours. — jamalrob

What 'leads' voters...
Reason or Emotion.
Facts v Fiction.
Patriotism v Treason

And who best persuades who is what and the dangers they represent.
It is a fearful, hate-filled wargame...
How can it be turned around ?

Probably just tons more crazy tweets and a big fat recession. — frank

That will probably happen anyway. Win or lose.
Unfettered absolute power is something else altogether...

The worst case scenario coming out of the impeachment inquiry is that Congress moves the Articles of Impeachment, but that the Senate acquits, and Trump goes on to win a second term... And if that were to happen then God help us. — Wayfarer

A scary scenario indeed. But not for those who would say it is God's Will.

So people are now arguing about the interpretation while the subject really should be the behaviour of Trump that gave rise to such worry that Maw makes the comparison. — Benkei

Exactly this.

Countries typically have policies and procedures that transcend party lines. It's simply a myth that in a democracy government day-to-day operations would differ so much depending on what party is in power. — ssu

The trouble comes when a policy is then doubled down into a stronger, nastier tasting concentrate.
Then, each party can blame the other for starting it.
And so it goes...

The snake can’t help itself, it’s its nature to bite. Maybe poetic license excuses blatant racism. — praxis

And the venomous snake bit the woman in more ways than one with the final line:

''Oh be quiet you silly woman ! You knew I was a snake before you took me in."

So, this was a clever use of a poem. It framed a caring woman as stupid and will have chimed well with the patriarchal religious. The Garden of Eden - Adam, Eve and the Snake. Where woman is blamed for tempting Adam to eat the apple from the Tree of Knowledge. Again, the message we really should not seek knowledge - have faith in the Bible.

Just like the snake, Trump can't help being who he is. His nature to bite.
A great defence against anyone critical of his actions - 'you knew what I was like before you let me in.'
Some had hoped they might act as a balance and check...silly billies.

The video is quite mild compared to some rallies.

The latest at Minneapolis:

Trump sought to weaponise Democrats’ impeachment inquiry to his electoral advantage on Thursday at a typically crude-but-effective rally in which he declared Joe Biden “was only a good vice president because he understood how to kiss Barack Obama’s ass”.

In his first campaign stop since the inquiry was announced, the US president and a 20,000-capacity crowd staged a formidable show of defiance at a basketball arena in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Trump mesmerised his fans for 102 minutes with a verbal cannon of conspiracy theories, blatant falsehoods, profane insults and anti-refugee bigotry.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/11/trump-minneapolis-rally-biden
— David Smith

That might be so. It still wasn't clever...

The people must be built. They must be constituted. And we do that by engagement...
...I do think its naive to say that race was not a factor - perhaps and likely the most important factor - in what's been going on. But even racism is differential - that it mattered here does not mean it has to matter in the future. But the only way to bring out that result is, again, engagement. I qualify this by saying that 'engagement' is not a solution but itself a problem: engage how, where, and in what manner? These are tactical questions. — StreetlightX

Following questions by Krishnan Guru-Murthy on how people feeling helpless about Brexit can engage,Timothy Snyder made a few practical suggestions as to a 'kit of tools'.
Bsically, decide what you care about, small actions on a daily basis, eye contact, avoid inflammatory language...
It is all about attitude of citizens towards authoritarianism. To move beyond the apathy on which it depends. And not to be willing to adjust to a new 'normal' as in the boiled frog scenario.

From 7mins in...
https://www.channel4.com/news/some-of-todays-politicians-have-learned-propaganda-tricks-from-1930s-fascists-says-yale-professor

I think it interesting Snyder mentions face to face "look them in the eye".
This means that there would be no anonymity as per online forums. Perhaps more care in use of language. Even Parliament is now having to tone it down a bit. I can't remember him mentioning social media...

I think Clinton totally lost it when she spoke of a 'basket of deplorables'.
Her contempt and disdain in this generalisation of voters was clear. It was not clever.
— Amity

And yet she is clever. Maybe she thought that she had it in the bag so why not have some fun. The audience laughed. Pure hubris. — praxis

Yes. It totally backfired on her. She has to live with that line; that act of stupidity which turned the undecideds towards Trump. The utter disdain shown by that phrase, was used to great effect by Trump who boxes clever.

Donald Trump criticized Clinton's remark as insulting his supporters In a rally at Des Moines, Iowa, Trump stated: "While my opponent slanders you as deplorable and irredeemable, I call you hardworking American patriots who love your country". During the rest of the election, Trump invited "deplorable Americans" on stage. For example, at a rally in Miami, Florida, on September 16, 2016, Trump parodied Les Misérables with the title Les Déplorables under the song "Do You Hear the People Sing?". Trump also used the label against Clinton in an advertisement, which claimed that Clinton herself is deplorable because she "viciously demoniz[es] hard working people like you". — Wiki

Clamjamfry

...No doubt with the recent arguments at Edinburgh’s court of session in mind, the declaration itself calls for a written constitution, separation of powers between parliament and government and affirms judicial independence, as well as committing to human rights, transparency of land ownership, and the rejection of nuclear weapons.

As this latest clamjamfry gears up, it’s worth remembering the key role that Scottish artists and cultural figures played in the last independence referendum, on both sides, although more noisily for yes...

- from the Guardian Live. — Libby Brooks

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clamjamfry

Yes. All good questions.

I feel that many would vote for anyone if it meant preventing the likes of Hillary from achieving presidency...., it's just terrible that he can be a better option than his mainstream political rivals. — Judaka

I think that is what is happening here in the UK.
People will vote for what seems to be the least bad option, on looks alone. It's all about the personality.
Who can better persuade...
Corbyn is portrayed as the worst thing that can happen to the country.
Johnson, our mini Trump, is apparently FOR the people. Against the establishment and the law.

It is encouraging to read pertinent points being made after watching the 'Deplorables'.
Some useful and informative analyses. Just a few snippets:

From what I understand, the growing disparity between rich and poor is not good for democracy or economic stability. A small coalition of power and a downtrodden populace works well for an autocracy, however. — praxis

Regarding the Erie Pennsylvania Obama-Obama-Trump voters, manufacturing jobs have not returned and there's no indication that they will ever return. The horizon looks like ever increasing automation. So will they still vote for him in 2020? If so, will that be a rational choice, or a choice consistent with what they claim to be the reason for supporting him? — praxis

Then they pivot to Obama voters who subsequently voted for Trump, despite not offering any stats on whether or not this is a significant voting segment. In fact, only about 9% to 12% of Obama voters voted for Trump in 2016, and racial resentment nevertheless played a role in that switch. Oh, but I guess we'll never actually know the truth since that one gym owner said he had several biracial grandkids so he couldn't possibly be racist. — Maw

What people want is a sustainable supply of all the stuff/lifestyle they've been used to. They can't have it because it was always a system which borrowed heavily from reserves (ecological, and social). Politicians are never going to get elected by saying people can't have what they want, so they lie. Different lies fit better with the stories different demographics tell themselves. But they don't lie completely, they give a gloss of 'wrestling with the problem' to placate those who recognise that something is amiss. — Isaac

If you read the actual facts about Trump's character, career, history and politics, there is no way you could support him, but of course, neither he nor his supporters read anything much, let alone anything critical.
— Wayfarer

This is exactly the kind of attitude that the video is targeting. They knew all that and still voted for him...

I don't get why centrist liberals always want to make such a display of their outrage, even after three years. It's embarrassing. — jamalrob

What voters know (facts) and what they feel (emotions ).

Voters tend not to know all the facts; some even deride those that produce them.
They might vote for someone like Trump because 'He is just like us' - no time for inconvenient truths.
Plain speaking and puts America, especially white, aspirational males first and foremost.
People tend to only know what they see or read everyday and that is within their own zone, with media which speaks to baseline survival. Us against the Other. Fear and Prejudice.

It takes an openness of mind to look at another perspective, to travel outwith your own socio-cultural sphere. And even then, it don't matter much until the shit starts happening to you.

I think most here take a clear interest in what happens in America. It is highly influential in all ways.
But do we really know what is going on ? I think we might have a more objective and critical view.

How many people don't get to vote. How many are too ill, poor or downtrodden even to think about it ?
I watched episode 1 of a Simon Reeve's the Americas documentary the other day. It was an eye-opener.
Beautiful and shocking. Educational, fascinating travelogue but not to everyone's taste.

The parts that stayed with me related to the social aspects. The oil producers laying waste to country and communities. The ongoing murders of indigenous women, with no police even interested in interviewing a missing woman's son.
Who cares out there in the wilds ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00095nt/the-americas-with-simon-reeve-series-1-episode-1

What the hell is a 'centrist liberal' in America or UK, and why would you want to generalise about them ?
What is wrong with a display of outrage ?
Certain behaviours and actions from those in power are outrageous.
If people voice concern, this is not 'hysteria' and should not be portrayed as such. Why would you find such 'embarrassing' ?

I return to the cool, objective facts as presented by the academic in Ch4 interview.
And compare this with the more subjective, emotive aspects of the 'Deplorables' video. And Trump rallies which stir up hatred and mass hysteria.

People only see what they want to see and disregard the rest.

As @Maw says:
... it's interesting how we're are supposed to be overly sympathetic to ostensibly economically struggling whites, despite other ethnic groups, particularity Black Americans, having also struggled (in more meaningful ways) yet have never resorting to a voting for a overtly racist, fascist-adjacent strong man.

I can only go by what he said in the Ch4 interview
— Amity

That much is clear. — StreetlightX

Wow. An attempt to be clever and demeaning ?

That much is clear. I am using a specific example from someone new to me and probably a few other viewers. It is current, it made sense and was not 'hysterical'.
Krishnan Guru-Murthy held Snyder to account with pertinent questions and received clear answers in return.

You have a wider political knowledge - good for you.
It doesn't follow that you are right.
But it just might mean that you are an arrogant asshole.