2016 United States Election

[Primula Baggins]

Yov has posted pretty much exactly what I would have posted in response to Cerin if I had not been busy with family events for most of the day yesterday.

I would add that his remarks are bad in themselves, but worse in that they give shelter and encouragement for his followers to express the same views and worse and to take them farther, to the point of violence.

He likes tough talk and he condones and encourages violence against protesters. If this continues, something terrible is bound to happen. And it will be Trump's fault.

[yovargas]

This one might arguably not fall into the "evil" category but trying to silence his critics falls nicely into what I see as his authoritarian tendencies:

"One of the things I'm going to do if I win... I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money," Trump said during a rally in Fort Worth, Texas.

"We're going to open up those libel laws so when The New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or when the Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected," he said. "We're going to open up libel laws and we're going to have people sue you like you've never got sued before."

So we can add free speech to the list of parts of the constitution Trump would like to ignore. Authoritarians aren't generally fond of constitutions limiting their power.

[Cerin]

I'm genuinely shocked to see you try and make this "distinction".
There were "pragmatic" reasons to round up the Japanese post-Pearl Harbor. To do so was still a vile, despicable evil against the very core of American values.

Rounding up Japanese Americans was an understandable reaction to the vile, despicable evil act of bombing Pearl Harbor. In retrospect, we understand that it was a shameful thing to do, but I don’t hold people living in the context of those times to the standard of enlightenment that comes with hindsight. Their reaction was small, mean and unenlightened, but that’s what all we human beings are until we learn better. I do not consider people evil, either, who react to the horrors of Islamic terrorism by wanting to keep Muslims from entering the country. It is small, mean and unenlightened – it is human nature – but I would not call it evil.

There were "pragmatic" reasons to hunt down Communists during the Cold War. McCarthyism was still a vile, despicable evil against the very core of American values.

The notion of investigating Communist activity in America was not evil in itself, just as the notion of investigating radical Islamic activity in America today is not evil in itself. It was the way McCarthy conducted those investigations that was evil.

There are "pragmatic" reasons to ban Muslims from entering the country. To do so would be a vile, despicable evil against the very core of American values.

To ban Muslims from entering the country would be an incredibly dunderheaded response to Islamic terrorism, as you say, out of all proportion to the problem. I would not consider it evil, but a misguided response to evil.

What would you call a disproportionate fear of an Other group if not bigotry?

It is bigotry. Bigotry is not evil, but a symptom of being human. Indulging one’s bigotries in acts of violence and cruelty is evil.

But if this isn't "evil" enough for you, how about that time that he tweeted this image with blatantly false statistics about black violence:

I would call deliberately spreading lies about black men to make them seem more frightening – or deliberately spreading lies of any kind with the intent to do harm – to be evil. I don’t know why Trump tweeted this image, I don’t know what his intent was, and I don’t know if he knew the statistics were false.

Openly calling the murder of innocent civilians. Does this count as evil to you?

I think actually murdering innocent civilians, which we do all the time, is evil. I agree that Trump’s statement was shocking, but he backtracked on the idea, which shows he is willing to acknowledge a mistake.

Openly supporting torture for it's own sake. Not simply saying that torture is a valid interrogation technique - which is bad enough as it is - but condoning it be used for pure vengeance. Is calling waterboarding "great" count as evil to you? Does saying he wants to go farther count as evil to you? Does using torture as a form of vengeance count as evil to you? Do these sound like the words of a man simply looking for pragmatic solutions to Islamic terrorism to you?

I think beheading and drowning prisoners is evil. I think what happened at Abu Grahib was evil. I don’t think saying that people who behead and drown prisoners deserve to be waterboarded rises to the level of evil. I think probably lots of people would say they share that sentiment as a knee-jerk reaction (rather than as a considered and truly held belief, though there are plenty of those, too). Trump did backtrack on his torture statements when things were explained to him, which I think goes in his favor.

No, I would not consider thinking of punching in the face someone who is interrupting you in a public speech, to be evil. I would consider it to be a human response indicating an aggressive nature. I think Trump vocalizing that impulse was inappropriate and irresponsible. I think actually doing it would be criminal, but not necessarily evil.

I don’t think this misuse and overuse (as I see it) of the word ‘evil’ is particularly helpful.

Trump is a boorish bloviator, but I do not see an evil man. As I said, I find this frenzied over-reaction to Trump to be far more troubling than Trump himself. I believe there will be violence to come, but it will be this witch-hunt mentality that I hold to blame. I can feel it picking up steam.

[yovargas]

I find your response absolutely bizarre.

If you do not want to call a major presidential candidate openly endorsing bigotry, violence, prejudice, and discrimination evil, that is your prerogative. But I would say that doing so is factually and objectively extremely dangerous, and should be profoundly troubling to anyone who opposes bigotry, violence, prejudice, and discrimination.

[JewelSong]

Maybe it would be helpful, then, to define the word "evil." Cerin, you seem to have a different definition than the some of the rest of us. Would you give an example of something you *would* consider to be "evil" in the context of this discussion?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Voronwë the Faithful]

According to Donald Trump, there are approximately 432 million "very militant" Muslims in the world. That is based on his statement today that "something like 27 percent are, you know, really very militant about going after things" and the estimate that there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. He bases this on the fact that "they did a very strong study." No idea who "they" are.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/d ... t-militant

The man may or may not be evil, but he certainly is dangerously ignorant.

ETA: This is the best article I have seen explaining Trump's popularity: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... obama.html

[Cerin]

If you do not want to call a major presidential candidate openly endorsing bigotry, violence, prejudice, and discrimination evil, that is your prerogative.

I have made my best attempt to explain to you that I do not see Trump openly endorsing bigotry, prejudice or discrimination. I responded to each of your examples with my understanding of the example. I understand that you interpret Trumps statements differently than I do, and attribute these attitudes to him; I do not. If I did see a major presidential candidate openly endorsing bigotry, prejudice and discrimination, I would probably think of that person as evil. What I see in Trump is a narcissistic blowhard who is very careless and intemperate in his remarks. I do not see the evil man that you see.


Jewel, I listed several things I considered evil in my last post.

[Frelga]

I do call it evil. And I have neither patience nor respect for a candidate running on the platform of hate and bigotry, or anyone defending that platform through whatever bizarre twists of logic.

[JewelSong]

Jewel, sometimes you can be so aggravating.

We have something in common, then...

It seems to me that you are really splitting hairs (or making excuses) for Trump. Many of the things you describe as "evil" are things he has said or encouraged. Yet for some reason, you do not want to hold him accountable. Either you think he "didn't know" what he was saying (i.e.: the false tweet) or his statements encouraging violence are somehow "understandable" since we are all human, or he is just being a "blowhard" and couldn't possibly actually be "evil."

I am curious as to why you give him so much leeway. In all the instances mentioned by yov, what would be the sticking point for you where you would be willing to consider that perhaps the man is MORE than a "blowhard" and is, in fact, encouraging evil?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[yovargas]

I have made my best attempt to explain to you that I do not see Trump openly endorsing bigotry, prejudice or discrimination.

I thought you had conceded that the proposal to ban Muslims was bigotry, you just didn't want to call it evil. If you are saying that it is not bigotry, I would say that you are objectively, factually wrong. It is practically the textbook definition of bigotry, prejudice and discrimination.

And with that, I think I'll bow out for now.

(ETA to add - Cerin, you've said he's backtracked on some of those more extreme statements. I have never seen him say he was wrong about anything he's ever said. If you could provide links to that, I would be interested in seeing it.)

[axordil]

Two Trump supporters are canvassing my neighborhood. They didn't have a printout that I could see, suggesting they don't have the basic list of possibly friendly voters campaigns normally assemble for that, but rather are just going by zip code-level demographics. I was going to spray the front bricks with bleach soon anyway...

It's unfortunate that my Lego League Team wasn't here today. One of the kids does a great Trump impression, where he goes on about "making Mexicans build a wall you can see from orbit, just like my ego."

[Cerin]

yov, googling 'did Trump backtrack on killing terrorist families' I found several such links:

http://nypost.com/2016/03/04/trump-flip ... -families/

The salient bit:

“I will use every legal power that I have to stop these terrorist enemies,” the statement issued by his campaign said. “I do, however, understand that the United States is bound by laws and treaties and I will not order our military or other officials to violate those laws and will seek their advice on such matters. I will not order a military officer to disobey the law. It is clear that as president I will be bound by laws just like all Americans and I will meet those responsibilities.”

It seems to me that you are really splitting hairs . . .

It wouldn't be the first time someone has characterized my reasoning that way. I prefer precision when using words, and when assigning meaning.

Many of the things you describe as "evil" are things he has said or encouraged.

Which (below) are the many things he has encouraged?

-- It was the way McCarthy conducted those investigations that was evil.

-- Indulging one’s bigotries in acts of violence and cruelty is evil.

-- I would call deliberately spreading lies about black men to make them seem more frightening – or deliberately spreading lies of any kind with the intent to do harm – to be evil.

-- I think actually murdering innocent civilians, which we do all the time, is evil.

-- I think beheading and drowning prisoners is evil.

-- I think what happened at Abu Grahib was evil.

-- And I’ll add, I think burning accused witches at the stake was evil.

Yet for some reason, you do not want to hold him accountable.

I’m not in a position (as apparently some others are) to discern the motivations of another person’s heart. If I don’t know that the tweet of false statistics was with knowledge and deliberate intent to cause harm, I’m not going to assume that it was. Perhaps you are comfortable doing that. I’m not.

or his statements encouraging violence are somehow "understandable" since we are all human

That is not what I said.

, or he is just being a "blowhard" and couldn't possibly actually be "evil."

I did not say this about Trump's statements encouraging violence.

I am curious as to why you give him so much leeway.

I do not give leeway. I take people at face value, I take words at face value. I don't read into the things people say. I don't read evil into the things Trump says. You have to read evil into everything Trump says in order to make him into the monster people have created.

In all the instances mentioned by yov, what would be the sticking point for you where you would be willing to consider that perhaps the man is MORE than a "blowhard" and is, in fact, encouraging evil?

If Trump suggested banning a group of people from the country because of hatred of that group (rather than as a response to an actual problem, as with Islamic terrorism), I would regard that as evil.

If it were known that Trump had tweeted the false statistics with awareness of their falsehood, with the intent to make whites fear blacks, I would regard that as evil.

edit for tone and to remove offending word

[Primula Baggins]

Cerin, I'm still blinking at your assertion that bigotry isn't evil. You condemn violence caused by bigotry, but otherwise it is just fine? Even if it leads to injustice, or to people ignoring evil actions because they share the bigotry of those who acted?

How is it not an evil to consider other humans beings bad or inferior simply because of who they are—their skin color, their religion, their sexuality?

[JewelSong]

You know, Cerin, I didn't think you and I had had enough dialogue for you to make such a strong assertion about how "aggravating" I am. As far as I recall, I have tried to be as respectful as possible when responding to you, even when I vehemently disagree with you. If the fact that I might ask you to clarify or repeat something you've said is aggravating...well...sorry. I know you like precision in speech, but sometimes what you call precision becomes so bogged down in minutia that I honestly am not clear on what you mean. That is why I asked you to reiterate your definition of "evil."

And while you have given some specific examples, I am still not sure what your personal definition of the word is. I believe Trump, by his actions, willful ignorance, and even his inactions, is inciting evil. It seems that you make a distinction between "inciting evil" and actually "being evil." I do not. (And I am not putting words in your mouth here. This is my take-away from what you have said previously.)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Cerin]

Cerin, I'm still blinking at your assertion that bigotry isn't evil. You condemn violence caused by bigotry, but otherwise it is just fine? Even if it leads to injustice, or to people ignoring evil actions because they share the bigotry of those who acted?

How is it not an evil to consider other humans beings bad or inferior simply because of who they are—their skin color, their religion, their sexuality?

I think bigotry -- fear and loathing of people different from ourselves -- is a natural human response, one that we learn to overcome through awareness and experience. I think we all have bigotries, not necessarily major ones like racial and religious bigotry, but a tendency to prejudge or assume things about people in another group.

No, I don't think bigotry is fine, just as I don't think other aspects of our human nature, like selfishness, are fine. However, if we say bigotry is evil, then we're all evil, and the assignation loses it's significance. That's why I differentiated between attitude and action.

[yovargas]

yov, googling 'did Trump backtrack on killing terrorist families' I found several such links:

http://nypost.com/2016/03/04/trump-flip ... -families/

(Thank you for that. It is some small comfort to hear him say he would not order war crimes and pursue illegal torture, even though his plainly stated desire to so is still despicable, frightening, and, yes, evil.)

[Cerin]

And while you have given some specific examples, I am still not sure what your personal definition of the word is. I believe Trump, by his actions, willful ignorance, and even his inactions, is inciting evil. It seems that you make a distinction between "inciting evil" and actually "being evil." I do not. (And I am not putting words in your mouth here. This is my take-away from what you have said previously.)

I don't have a ready definition of evil. It's not a word I tend to use, nor a concept I tend to apply to people. I went with yov's premise because he had framed the question. If I were going to attempt to define evil for you, I'd probably first google it. I've just done the same with 'incite'. 'Incite' seems to me to definitely have the connotation of intent. For that reason, I would not say that Trump is inciting racism, hatred, or religious bigotry with the policies he's advocating, or with his behavior at rallies, because I don't know if the intent is there, and I am not willing to assume the intent is there. I would say he is definitely encouraging uncivil behavior by example.

edit

Looking back, I see that it was Prim who brought the word 'evil' into the conversation, not yov, and that I requested examples that rose to that level, hence the focus on that word.

[yovargas]

As I said, I find this frenzied over-reaction to Trump to be far more troubling than Trump himself.

Okay, I know I said I'll bow out, but I had to respond to this. This started because some loud, non-violent protesters got a Trump even shut down. Apparently, you find that non-violent protest more troubling than this:

“Here’s a guy, throwing punches, nasty as hell, screaming at everything else, when we’re talking,” Trump told the crowd, although CNN reported the man did not appear to be fighting with security officers.

“The guards are very gentle with him. He’s walking out, like, big high-fives, smiling, laughing,” Trump continued, before saying to loud cheers: “I’d like to punch him in the face, I tell ya.”

The incident was the latest in a string of controversial comments by Trump regarding protesters at his rallies. In November, after a Black Lives Matter protester was beaten and choked after disrupting a rally, Trump appeared to condone the rough treatment.

“Maybe he should have been roughed up, because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing,” he said on Fox News at the time.

On Monday night, the politician connected his desire to punch the protester with both the good, “old days” in America and the country’s more aggressive foreign policy under a President Trump.

“Look, see, he’s smiling. See, he’s having a good time,” Trump said of the protester. “You know what I hate? There’s a guy, totally disruptive, throwing punches, we’re not allowed to punch back anymore. I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They’d be carried out on a stretcher, folks.”

This is a front runner for the most powerful position in the country, in front of large crowds and a national audience with millions of rapt followers, saying he wishes he could use violence against "disruptive" people. He's not being coy or subtle or vague - he is plainly saying he has a desire to use violence to his very passionate audience. This is somehow less frightening to you than the people protesting him, who none have shown to condone or to be violent.

Saying that you find a man inciting violence less frightening than the people trying to stop him is plainly irrational.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

yov, googling 'did Trump backtrack on killing terrorist families' I found several such links:

http://nypost.com/2016/03/04/trump-flip ... -families/

(Thank you for that. It is some small comfort to hear him say he would not order war crimes and pursue illegal torture, even though his plainly stated desire to so is still despicable, frightening, and, yes, evil.)

Don't be too comforted, yov. Soon after his campaign put out that statement, he was back saying that we have to do worse than waterboarding, and target terrorists' families. His new line is that we have to change the laws to allow us to do these things because the current laws allow the terrorists to make 'suckers' of us.

ETA: Here is a link: https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/03/11 ... -our-laws/

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[Cerin]

As I said, I find this frenzied over-reaction to Trump to be far more troubling than Trump himself.

Okay, I know I said I'll bow out, but I had to respond to this. This started because some loud, non-violent protesters got a Trump even shut down.

Actually, this started because of the replies to this comment of mine:

I wonder what we would think of a group of Trump supporters crashing a Clinton and/or Sanders rally and inciting a disturbance so as to prevent the rally from taking place.

River said:

Good for the protesters. We need more of that.

And

In other words, Trump's a special case.

And

Swarms of protesters nipping this in the bud, before it turns to a repeat of what Europe suffered in the 1930's and 1940's, is, I think, the less daunting of our options.

Prim said:

I believe that there are evils to which it is imperative for people of conscience to respond. Trump's ugly rhetoric isn't blameless because he himself doesn't believe it. What he is exciting and permitting at his rallies is evil. It's contrary to the principles on which civic discourse in our country should be founded.

People are right, and have the right, to object to it. To do otherwise is to ignore a growing cancer.

Apparently, you find that non-violent protest more troubling than this:

What I find more troubling than Trump’s comments are the implications I see in these comments from sensible, intelligent, well-meaning people.

Now, since you’ve declared my views on this subject irrational, and because I’ve already sat far too long today posting replies, and because it would take some time for me to explain what I find so disturbing about these comments, I’m not inclined to try to do that.

I’ve agreed that Trump’s comments about punching people are a real cause for concern, and are inappropriate and irresponsible. What I see in this excerpt you’ve provided, is Trump expressing irritation at the people who are interrupting his speeches, and inappropriate remarks to his supporters about punching them out. I don’t think the tone of the remarks is especially serious, and I do believe that Trump tends to say things without thinking. What I don’t see in the excerpt is someone inciting people to violence against people because of their race or religion. Trump takes exception to people interrupting his speeches. That is a big and significant difference to me.


Now to finish, here is an example of what I would call a blatant statement of bigotry. It is a hateful, derisive comment directed at people who are not known except as members of a particular group. I’m quoting Ax not out of a desire to call him out, but just because he provided what is in my view such an excellent example. Just replace ‘Trump supporters’ with any group of your choice. I literally recoiled from my computer screen.

Two Trump supporters are canvassing my neighborhood. They didn't have a printout that I could see, suggesting they don't have the basic list of possibly friendly voters campaigns normally assemble for that, but rather are just going by zip code-level demographics. I was going to spray the front bricks with bleach soon anyway...