Protestors Are Assholes

[Hagtard Celine Dion Mustard]

I expected other Discordians (of all people) to be able to appreciate the swing of a political pendulum and to recognize the absurdity of partisan politics.

Well I do and I saw this coming, not because Trump has any merit or the American people are any more redneck than usual but because since before my parents were born we've never had two democratic presidents in a row where the first one didn't die in office (and only once have we had two republicans in a row where one didn't leave office before his term was up). It's like a see-saw.

I'm starting to wonder whether or not the "see-saw" is the only way this country can function, both for itself and for the rest of the world.

There are a lot of people who would like to see the see-saw permanently tipped in one direction or the other, and I sometimes wonder what the consequences would be, for better and for worse.

That is, however, a topic on which I'm probably unqualified to reliably speculate.

[Hagtard Celine Dion Mustard]

Oh, then I am sorry. 

Forgiven and forgotten! I should have made it clearer that I was being general and sardonic.

The burden for proof that the current administration is just like the right wing, and thus the reactions of the left are unwarrented lies with YOU.

Haha, well, that's not generally how burden of proof in an argument works, but I understand what you're saying.

"Intentionalist historians of Nazi Germany traditionally emphasize the unique role of Hitler in legitimizing and directing Nazi rule from the very beginning of the movement (Jaeckel 1972; Bracher 1979).7 On this view, German fascism is seen as a 'monocratic' system of rule (Alleinherrschaft) which is not only dependent on the ideological vision of the leader but on his personal decision making. As structuralist historians argue, however, this interpretation downplays the multi-dimensional nature of decision making in the Third Reich and the deliberate cultivation of the 'Führer myth' as a legitimation device, which allowed Nazi rulers to attribute policy successes to the leader while blaming lesser functionaries for the chaotic reality of polycratic rule (Broszat 1981; Mason 1971; Mommsen 1991b). As Kershaw points out, this allowed the Nazi elite to project an image of the Führer as a leader without sin, a person who could transcend sectional interests and rise above everyday political squabbles."

I wasn't asking for proof or evidence, but as a side note I do find the honest concept wildly fascinating; probably as much as the earnest belief that the Democratic party is merely an extension of the Chinese government.

I should state for the record that I neither believe nor disbelieve either notion.

[LMNO]

Hold on:

Since Godwin's Law isn't formal, it has been long-since (unspokenly) amended to include people who accuse others of being literal Nazis as a form of hyperbole.

"Literally: actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy"
"Hyperbole: an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally"

Without exaggeration or inaccuracy calling someone a Nazi as an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally.

[Salty]

Haha, well, that's not generally how burden of proof in an argument works, but I understand what you're saying.

Pretty sure that's exactly how it works. You open the thread, your statements require proof. Am I wrong here? Have I been egregiously misinformed, people?

I wasn't asking for proof or evidence

You were claiming my point was hyperbole, I countered with evidence this is not so.

[Hagtard Celine Dion Mustard]

You open the thread, your statements require proof. Am I wrong here? Have I been egregiously misinformed, people?

We might be getting crosstalk again. Not to flog a dying horse, but burden of proof is on any person who makes an assertion to provide support for that claim.

In other words, if you accuse someone of being a Nazi and want to be taken seriously, you have a large burden of proof on you. The burden of proof isn't on whomever you're trying to convince. I understand, however, the reasons behind telling people to go out and do their own research.

[Salty]

You positioned the left and the right as equally opposing sides in regard to this election.

I said that was erroneous and gave my reasons.

Now we are in quibbling over definitions and what is and what is not Godwin's Law.

[Hagtard Celine Dion Mustard]

Since Godwin's Law isn't formal, it has been long-since (unspokenly) amended to include people who accuse others of being literal Nazis as a form of hyperbole.

"Literally: actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy"
"Hyperbole: an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally"

Correct. People sometimes use the word "literally" when they are, in fact, being hyperbolic.

It's an effort to have the best of both worlds in an argument. You get to hold an extreme position that you know nobody else will take seriously, and then if they later accuse you of being serious, you can simply say that you weren't.

[Hagtard Celine Dion Mustard]

You positioned the left and the right as equally opposing sides in regard to this election.

I said that was erroneous and gave my reasons.

Now we are in quibbling over definitions and what is and what is not Godwin's Law.

I would not agree that any of this is an accurate description of what has taken place; certainly not from my point-of-view.

[Salty]

Ok, then I will have to re-asess this entire thread.

My analysis:

[Junkenstein]

You positioned the left and the right as equally opposing sides in regard to this election.

I said that was erroneous and gave my reasons.

Now we are in quibbling over definitions and what is and what is not Godwin's Law.

Memo to self,1 reword a speech by Hitler to trump style.
2 claim its an actual speech by trump
3 ???
4 profit

[Salty]

You positioned the left and the right as equally opposing sides in regard to this election.

I said that was erroneous and gave my reasons.

Now we are in quibbling over definitions and what is and what is not Godwin's Law.

Memo to self,1 reword a speech by Hitler to trump style.
2 claim its an actual speech by trump
3 ???
4 profit

Yessssssss.

[P3nT4gR4m]

3 is facebook, in case your question wasn't hyperbolical

[LMNO]

3 is facebook, in case your question wasn't hyperbolical

Or literally hyperbolic.

Or something.

[Pergamos]

See, I am always in favor of people losing their shit, whether it be ranting here or protesting there.  About more or less anything.  Or, hell, nothing at all.

Spoken like a true Discordian!

But I gotta say, I fail to see "protesting a Nazi and the people who elected him" as "nothing at all."

Well, first of all, if you're left-leaning politically, then you probably would sympathize. The real question is whether or not you condemn the people who, in 2008, claimed to be protesting a "Communist and the people who elected him".

Of course, if you think that Donald Trump is a literal Nazi, you probably have a fairly uncompromising position, and you are less likely to be interested in diplomacy between two incredibly powerful political institutions.

Congratulations! You've become an obstructionist and a filibusterer! (Just like "they" did.)

The more people are different, the more they are alike.

We could REALLY use more obstructrionist filibusterers in the Democratic party.

[Salty]

See, I am always in favor of people losing their shit, whether it be ranting here or protesting there.  About more or less anything.  Or, hell, nothing at all.

Spoken like a true Discordian!

But I gotta say, I fail to see "protesting a Nazi and the people who elected him" as "nothing at all."

Well, first of all, if you're left-leaning politically, then you probably would sympathize. The real question is whether or not you condemn the people who, in 2008, claimed to be protesting a "Communist and the people who elected him".

Of course, if you think that Donald Trump is a literal Nazi, you probably have a fairly uncompromising position, and you are less likely to be interested in diplomacy between two incredibly powerful political institutions.

Congratulations! You've become an obstructionist and a filibusterer! (Just like "they" did.)

The more people are different, the more they are alike.

We could REALLY use more obstructrionist filibusterers in the Democratic party.

SERIOUSLY! If that helps prevent some really nasty consequences for women and the environment and everything else under threat I would be okay with Dems drowning kittens. Filibustering is their job, and they will likely, as usual, fail at it.