Not sure what conversation you'd like me to have with Hanover and others, when the points I'm making are constantly ignored. — Maw

Most of your points are less points, than jabs, expulsions of anger, sharp needles looking for soft bellies. The points nestled among the jabs are lost because the people responding, correctly, read these points as merely the means to an end of Expressed Contempt.

The cartoon is making the exact same bad political/rhetorical move he was decrying. — csalisbury

As I said, the cartoon is a response to a specific form of argumentation that Hanover had made.

Most of your points are less points, than jabs, expulsions of anger, sharp needles looking for soft bellies. The points nestled among the jabs are lost because the people responding, correctly, read these points as merely the means to an end of Expressed Contempt. — csalisbury

Yeah I do often have contempt for some people here if they say stupid shit. Hanover decides to define Nazism as genocide despite the Final Solution being put in place in 1941. When I point out that Nazism existed and was in power prior to this he ignores it. When I point out that immigrants are being called infestation and vermin, and point out the state of children in concentration camps, he ignores this and just states that we're not putting people in gas chambers, which started in 1939. When I criticize his reliance on defining Nazism by its concluding years, ignoring the conditions which lead to genocide, he ignores it and goes back to talking about genocide. I find this frustrating and contemptible.

As I said, the cartoon is a response to a specific form of argumentation that Hanover had made. — Maw

I do recognize that. I tried to show in my post that I understand the point of the cartoon, and I also understand Hanover's argument, and I tried to show the disconnect between the cartoon and what it's cartooning. I think I did a good job of that and whether you agree or disagree with my points, I wish you had engaged with it.

You didn't, and I suspect that that's because it was a speedbump in the way of composing the hyperlinked second post. which I will go through now and respond to, shortly, in a subsequent post.

I do recognize that. I tried to show in my post that I understand the point of the cartoon, and I also understand Hanover's argument, and I tried to show the disconnect between the cartoon and what it's cartooning. I think I did a good job of that and whether you agree or disagree with my points, I wish you had engaged with it.

You didn't, and I suspect that that's because it was a speedbump in the way of composing the hyperlinked second post. — csalisbury

I didn't, because you are over-analyzing a cartoon in a digression that I'm not following whatsoever.

I didn't, because you are over-analyzing a cartoon in a digression that I'm not following whatsoever. — Maw

If the close-reading of the cartoon is confusing, bracket the second paragraph and focus on the first . In the meantime, I'll take the time to read all of your links and respond.

the close-reading of the cartoon — csalisbury

oh here's the problem

Link one: Hanover didn't define Naziism as anything. He pointed out a disanalogy between Trump and Hitler. Of course there is a good point - one you made - that it doesn't make sense to wait until Trumpism & Naziism coincide - because then it's too late. I will point out that Hitler lead the Beer Putsch in 1923, wrote Mein Kampf in 1925. Trump has no signs of being that intensely committed to a pain-hardened vision he's seeking to realize. I'd also point out that Germany was severely economically and militarily humiliated following WW1. I'd also point out that Fascism took root in areas outside state control by installing secondary institutions that could rival the state. None of which apply to America now. It's not really the same, as Robert O Paxton, pre-eminent scholar of Fascism, tried to show in Harpers (that bastion of conservative thought) to deaf ears.

Second link: same response.

Third link does show that conditions are horrible for immigrant children and families. I agree, fully, wholeheartedly, and reject everything Hanover has said about families bringing this on themselves. This is an outrage and I won't defend it.

But, fourth link, I don't accept the analogy between these camps and holocaust concentration camps. (this leaves me open - link me to the concentration camp specialists.)

fifth link. I'm no specialist on genocide but I have taken a class devoted to the sociology of genocide. There have been genocides for a long time, and they have similar structural features, but, luckily we don't seem to be in one today.

sixth link: It make sense to focus on genocide when the rhetorical oomph of the comparison involves genocide. If you don't want to focus on genocide, but rather what led up to it (and again I understand your point that we want to anticipate and stop, rather than react and mitigate) you might rest easier. I had a similar alarmist reaction when Trump won. I was sincerely scared.Me and my friends put together a reading group to study fascism. We did. We concluded, despite the horrible things going on, that we're not in danger of a fascist takeover.

oh here's the problem — Maw

Literally, who are you talking to? I'm serious man, I would appreciate if you responded to my engaged response. I am responding to yours. I discussed the cartoon. You're...I don't know what you're doing? We're not on twitter, no one's going to like and retweet the snarky one-liners. Who are you talking to? Can we talk freely, or do we have to eyeroll to a nonexistent person who already agrees with us?

But, fourth link, I don't accept the analogy between these camps and holocaust concentration camps. (this leaves me open - link me to the concentration camp specialists.) — csalisbury

You can read an article from the NY Review of Books by historian Andrea Pitzer, who recently wrote a book about the history of concentration camps.

I read the article. The worst thing you can do, right, is say 'it's bad, but it's not Auschwitz.' If I said that, I'd be torn to shreds. I wouldn't say that. But the author of the article you linked does (reread it.) In context, of course: it's not Auschwitz, but it could become that. It could, but what is the mechanism by which that stuff actually happens? She doesn't get into it. She focuses on abstract potential.

But I'm not going to defend any of it, it's horrible, it's full-stop bad. I'm not going to weigh things one way or the other. I'm not going to disrespect either the suffering of holocaust victims or contemporary victims by fitting it into a false historical narrative, for political fuel.

Do I think these concentration camps are likely to lead to holocaust-type gas-chambers? No, but I think that's irrelevant to the people caught up in them. Stop that shit. They're not there to score points for disinterested observers. They're in a bad place - don't make that about fascism. Make it about what it is, which is what it is. You don't need Hitler. If you make it about hitler, which it isn't, people will dismiss you on immigration, when they shouldn't. Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot, at the expense of real people, in order to beautifully release our (privileged European- Cioran) anger in accordance with suitably grand narratives. If you care as much as you say you do, figure out how concretely to help. Don't use it to be right for the sake of slamdowns. That's gross.

But, fourth link, I don't accept the analogy between these camps and holocaust concentration camps. (this leaves me open - link me to the concentration camp specialists.)

“Concentration camp, internment centre for political prisoners and members of national or minority groups who are confined for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment, usually by executive decree or military order. Persons are placed in such camps often on the basis of identification with a particular ethnic or political group rather than as individuals and without benefit either of indictment or fair trial. Concentration camps are to be distinguished from prisons interning persons lawfully convicted of civil crimes and from prisoner-of-war camps in which captured military personnel are held under the laws of war. They are also to be distinguished from refugee camps or detention and relocation centres for the temporary accommodation of large numbers of displaced persons.”

https://www.britannica.com/topic/concentration-camp

For the same reason I don’t speed around police. If an action is likely to lead to negative consequences we are less likely to do it. If the penalty for illegal entry is jail and deportation, one is less likely to do it. — NOS4A2

Are you familiar with any actual research on deterrence or is this folk psychology? You said deterrence was necessary. To justify that claim, you'd first need to establish it's effective (a tall order, given that illegal immigrants regularly risk death), but you then also need to explain why it's necessary in the strict sense - that it's a proportionate response with no alternatives.

I seems to me that the Nazi Death camps are the apotheosis of industrialised death, but merely the Gold medal winner in an event that many have entered. The Gulags, the Cambodian killing fields, I won't give all the runners...

Please I beg you all, left and right - if you are human - you and your beneficent leader are capable of entering this event in the Depravity Olympics. Not having reached the finish line is not something to be proud of. Do not forbid the question that every regime must be asked on a regular basis - are you going a bit Nazi? Ask yourself every now and then. Learn to recognise the symptoms before the slaughter begins: polarisation of society, economic decline, dehumanising propaganda and the undermining of honest reporting, populism, the invention of crisis, immanent invasion, economic exploitation, above all the enemy within. Be especially wary of any attempted takeover of one arm of government by another and especially especially, of the judiciary. A government not subject to the law becomes tyrannical every time.

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.

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 ?

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.

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

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...

Now let's say there is tons of political nuance that's being missed, institutional racism, etc. (In fact, I would agree that this is the case.) By collapsing an entire spectrum of problematic views w/r/t race, into Racist (bad) versus woke (good) and placing everyone you disagree with all the way on the end, you guarantee that they will never listen to you. In fact, they'll, slowly, begin to doubt other, more nuanced, more apt, accusations of racism. The significance of 'racist' will begin to be devalued. Accusations of racism they would have agreed with you on before, now seem to become suspect. Eventually they'll stop listening to you altogether. They won't become literal nazis - as in your cartoon - just as Hanover didn't say he was going to become a literal nazi. They'll see enough cartoons like yours to realize there is no chance in any conversation but for themselves to be caricatured and they'll just stop listening to you. — csalisbury

I see your point, but on the other hand, a certain amount of categorization is important for social, political action. If we look at everyone's exact position and exact reasons for that position, there is no way to effect social change. Winning an election, changing a society's general outlook, are social problems. You cannot solve them without some categorization into people who are on the right side and people who are not.

Accounting for every nuance will bog you down, and allow less scrupulous people to take the initiative.

Please I beg you all, left and right - if you are human - you and your beneficent leader are capable of entering this event in the Depravity Olympics. — unenlightened

I appreciate the concern here. But when a society becomes that sick, history tells us that it comes like a violent storm. If you're there when it starts, you shouldn't hang around wagging your finger. You should run, like to Asia.

Large scale forces are at work when that happens. The problem isn't a lack of vigilance.

history tells us that it comes like a violent storm — frank

I think you need to interrogate history more closely.

As you might expect, I think the same of you.

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...

From the OP. How many posters actually watched the 'Deplorables' ? — Amity

The main point of the video is against efforts to represent Trump’s voters and brexiters as deplorable, unspeakable, racist, xenophobic, etc. Also, according to the video, 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. Does Trump speak on behalf of its base? Does he speak what it wants to hear? If it is correct, there is an apparent controversy between what we see in the video and the numerous accounts of Trump. Because if they are correct, we should agree that Trump’s base is comprised of the deplorable and unspeakable.

...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?

The rhetoric comparing Trump’s supporters to Nazis justifies their persecution.

Next movie starts soon...

I think the same of you. — frank

I gave a list of several factors that are to my mind and to many others, common precursors of fascism, the collapse of democracy, and the beginning of catastrophic state violence. You dismiss them without argument. I don't think you "think the same of me" by a long shot.

The rhetoric comparing Trump’s supporters to Nazis justifies their persecution. — NOS4A2

Both Trump supporters and protesters have engaged in violent acts.

Also important to distinguish between someone who voted for Trump in 2016 (and who may or may not support him now), and those that continue to praise and support him and his policies now.

On too many occasions over the last several weeks I’ve found myself waiting to hear out an argument from you that never materializes.

Anyway, if you’re game I’m curious about your views on immigration. Do you just go along with the Trump party line or do you have any independent views that may at all diverge?