649
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2024
649 points (97.8% liked)
politics
19239 readers
1934 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Here you go.
LIVE REPLAY: CPAC Day Two 4:48:38
edit: never mind, that is his CPAC speech where he promises to destroy to democracy
edit: People only seem to be reporting on the clip linked in the article that was of the panel in that conference room. There doesn't seem to be a recording of the entire panel online currently.
Ok he did say it verbatim but it sounds like he's being sarcastic.
Edit: y'all I never said that this was a responsible example of a politician communicating with the public.
He's not being sarcastic. He's artificially injecting sarcasm into his voice so he can say what he really believes. He wants to jail Democrats and pardon the insurrectionists. He defines everything that is beneficial about our society as evil. He's talks like he lives in alternate reality. He wants to tear down our liberal democracy and replace it with a christofascist dictatorship. It's not a joke.
It's time to stop giving these guys a free pass when they say they're just joking or speak in a sarcastic way. These people are unironically telling you what they want to do. Believe them when they say they want to destroy our democracy.
Say what? Did you watch your own video? Because I followed your link, watched it for ~3min, and he is clearly 100% being sarcastic. Not just in tone of voice, it's clear from the content. No doubt about it. When laying out his "plan to destroy democracy" it's a laundry list of points from the stop-the-steal bullshit. Among that:
All things the Republicans accused the Democrats of doing during the 2020 election. Then he ends with saying:
I mean the guy went off the deep end and is obviously insane, but there is simply no doubt that he was being sarcastic here and that the measures he cites are not his actual plan. A Republican letting millions of people into the country voluntarily should have given it away to even the densest of viewers.
It is absolutey insane how hard it is to find one reasonable comment on Lemmy these days. 'Naturally gifted' density or willful ignorance, either way, there's an impressive amount of people that believe he was speaking from the heart because it confirms their own beliefs.
I understand the start of his speech where he says "this is my plan" is his idea of a joke. He's not saying he's going to do those things, he's saying the Democrats have already done those things. But he really believes that the Democrats have done those things or that the beneficial things the Democrats have done are evil. Sorry I didn't think I needed to be this explicit.
He does want to destroy our democracy though. He wants a christofascist dictatorship. He talks about making a "new American Republic" out of the ashes and retribution. He wants to pardon the Jan 6 rioters. He wants to lock up political opponents in the Democratic Party. They want to replace everyone in the white house with partisan yes men, a plan called Project 2025.
Sorry, I didn't do a good job explaining this the first time around.
And I understand that you understand the joke. I understand that Posobiec and the far right are nuts and believe the Democrats have already done what he's joking about. You didn't need to be that explicit, and you don't have to type "Sorry, I didn't think I needed to be that explicit" in every reply to make yourself feel superior either. You're not apologizing, you're still on a high horse. I don't even necessarily disagree with you but I took issue with your responses.
I made a mistake. I wasn't clear or explicit enough and a bunch of people misunderstood because of it. If you don't believe my apology is sincere, I don't care. But I'm not going to let you or anyone mischaracterize what I say without a response.
edit: Ok, I might care a little if you don't accept my apology. But as far as I'm concerned you have the right to reject my apology and say it is insincere. For some reason I don't really understand, I really care if other people in general think less of me. ~~I think~~ I have an ego problem.
Sorry, I should have been more explicit. My bad. All the things he lists are the alternate reality he lives in. He really believes the Democrats have done those things and thinks the beneficial things the Democrats have done are evil. Like he thinks Democrats have poisoned the blood of our country by letting in immigrants, even though we're a nation of immigrants, and even though Republicans killed the border bill. He thinks mail in voting is bad, because he wants to suppress voter turn out. That list was him thinking he's being clever, to paraphrase, "The Democrats have already destroyed our democracy." He even accuses the Democratic party of being an authoritarian regime, when we know that is what Republicans want on day 1.
When he says he wants to restore our constitutional republic he means he wants to destroy our democracy. Constitutional republic is conservatives code for "we are not a democracy, we have minority rule". He then accuses us, anyone left of him, all of hating white, straight, "successful people", when it's the same group of white straight screw ups that hate all of us. He says we hate our founders, our history, and self made people when, all conservatives do is lie about the founders and history. Most of the founders were Deists, but conservatives insist we are a christian nation. Conservatives say they don't want activist judges, but then use British law in their opinions to overturn Roe v Wade. The say billionaires are self made success stories, but Elon Musk and billionaires they hate like Bill Gates just inherited a bunch of money.
Do I need to do a full translation of his speech or have I a clarified enough? He wants to destroy democracy. I thought his "joke" was self explanatory too. The commenter I was replying to seem to suggest Republicans don't want to form a christofascist dictatorship because they're saying it with a sarcastic tone of voice. Which is nonsense and so 2016, "He's just trolling". Does anyone else remember that? Self proclaimed internet trolls got interviewed and proudly explained how they had got Trump elected and were in on the joke. I'm never going to let that kind of rhetoric slide again. edit: typo
Fair enough, but none of that means he wasn't being sarcastic. Merriam-Webster defines that as "a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain", which this clearly was. That is of course not a get-out-of-jail-card for being a dumbass, but he doesn't intend to abolish (his twisted idea of) democracy.
I mean suppose for a second, just for arguments sake, that the Democratic party did indeed steal the 2020 election and you would have to re-evaluate things like January 6th being an insurrection, because violent resistance against somebody undermining a country's constitution is legitimate. Which is a stance you might have to take yourself sooner rather than later, especially if Trump wins again.
On a side-note, as a German growing up on copious amounts of Nazi history in school and some TV channels running 24/7 documentaries about them it seems rather clear to me where these MAGA people are headed. Already was in 2016. It's fascism. But it is important to remember that such movements aren't as monolithic as they might seem from the outside. There are many people in them who are just high on their own supply of bullshit, and you don't do yourself any favours by misinterpreting them and fielding arguments which are then easily refuted, doubly so if you are fighting against their confirmation bias.
To be fair though, the article in the OP seems to make that very same mistake.
The comment I replied to was:
What this implies is, because the speaker said it a certain way, he doesn't really mean he wants to destroy democracy. I'm saying, no, he clearly does, in the second half of his CPAC speech he describes destroying democracy.
His joke in the first half of the CPAC speech was he said "this is my plan", listed stuff the Democrats have done, and then the punchline was Democrats have already destroyed democracy. It doesn't matter how he said it. Many MAGA support believe the Democrats have done those things or that the beneficial things the Democrats have done are evil. He does intended to abolish Democracy as do many MAGA supporters.
If you have an argument that can refute this and demonstrate that the fascists in the Republican party are not trying to build a christofascist dictatorship please share it.
See my reply to you up-thread.
it's a big part of why bottomfeeder conservatives don't pick up on sarcasm or any form of linguistic subtlety - they have their own stories they tell themselves about what Don Jesus said after the fact, and don't need to worry about whether he was being sarcastic to own the libs. The angels don't use sarcasm, so neither do they, and they certainly don't expect it from a cheesy poof.
Republicans already tried to end democracy when they tried to stop the transfer of power through violence in the last election.
Now they're just coming out and saying it "we're terrorists" and "we'll end democracy"
This guy: "they're being sarcastic".
Bush V. Gore
Poll taxes.
Well he clearly is being sarcastic though. Frankly this whole thread is an affront towards the concept of language comprehension.
The facts don't matter, only the narrative.
Every accusation is a confession.
I see, so the other day when you were accusing me of being disingenuous and splitting hairs, you were confessing that you are disingenuous and split hairs.
While it was obvious, I have to say I'm surprised to hear you admit it.
Oh wow. So you're going to keep trolling me huh. Wow, big surprise. Don't let me stop you.
Trolling you? You responded to me not the other way around. Lol
I guess this is another one of those "every accusation is a confession" things.
It's the standard playing ignorant routine. Does it get old?
You're the one, by your own logic, confessing that you're playing ignorant by accusing me of it.
So, I don't know, you tell me.
Although, this is especially funny in light of our discussion yesterday where you also claimed that ad hominems undercut the point.
Just keep trolling me. Don't stop now.
I still can't tell if you're just really dumb or you're actually a troll. If you're trolling, well done.
You're on a roll. You've accused the person you're trolling of trolling. It doesn't get higher quality than that.
Nah, it was you who accused them of trolling when you said every accusation is a confession, not me.
Every accusation from a conservative is a confession.
Allowing yourself to go around throwing accusations at will, while simultaneously stopping anyone you label a conservative from doing so. Very convenient!
How about this, can I say that every accusation by a toasted planet is a confession? Boom. I like this style of "thought" where we just get to make up anything we want.
I refuse to be silenced because you are trolling. You can champion conservatism all you want and in the most disingenuous way you can think of. But I refuse to go quietly while the Republican party drags my country into a christofascist dictatorship.
lol. You're truly lost.
This is what Republicans are planning if they win the presidential election this year. It's a christofascist dictatorship.
https://www.project2025.org/
I will be as silly as I have to if that's what it takes to speak my mind and advocate for our democracy.
lol. You're truly lost.
“Don the Magic Cloak of Plausible Deniability and come with us!”
Pretending it's a joke is literally their tactic.
Read the wider context.
They need to dress what they're very serious about as sarcasm because saying it seriously is a crime.
Delivering something in a sarcastic affect doesn't necessarily make it a joke if the context doesn't support it.
There's nothing funny about calling insurrectionists "martyrs", having a written plan about how they'll gut the government, seeing how they behave in states where they have complete control where they have actually gutted the possibility of anyone else coming to power.
None of that supports this as a joke.
GP didn't say these people or this speaker aren't trying to destroy democracy. GP said they were being sarcastic in this specific video timestamp with the "ending democracy" quote and the context around it.
But nobody in this thread has doubted that the Republicans are anti-democratic in general.
Well did you actually look at the context in the video? Because if you don't see that he is being sarcastic there then, no offence, you have no idea what sarcasm is. Or you are hugging your confirmation bias like your life depends on it, which to be fair it actually might. The speech in its entirety is clearly a fascist screed, but that doesn't mean the beginning of it isn't sarcastic. And obviously so at that.
Yes, context matters. On that we agree. And unless you think he is actually proposing to "flood the nation with millions of invaders [sic] who vote the way we want" then he was being fucking sarcastic there.
That is not what I mean when I say he wasn't being sarcastic. I understand that the joke is he said "this is my plan", then listed a bunch of things the Democrats did, including when he listed immigration, and then the punchline is the Democrats did those things and have already destroyed democracy. What I mean is that he and MAGA supporters really believe that immigration is the Democrats fault. And that he thinks immigration poisons the blood of our country even though the US is a nation of immigrants and in fact immigration is a net benefit.
When he says, to paraphrase, "I want to destroy democracy" but says it in a sarcastic way, I mean he's not being sarcastic. He really wants to destroy democracy. He describes destroying democracy in the second part of his CPAC speech.
That is irrelevant.
Also irrelevant.
There are, by definition, two conditions to be met for his statement to be sarcastic.
It is entirely possible for him to want to destroy democracy and still say it in a sarcastic way at the same time. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
Plus, as we have established down-thread, you seem to agree that he doesn't believe he wants to destroy democracy, because he has a twisted notion of what democracy means.
I don't understand why that is so hard to grasp for people in this thread.
Edit: a word.
I recommend a descriptive approach for definitions rather than a prescriptive approach. Rather than using the dictionary as a kind of set of physical laws for what words mean, prescriptive, it's relevant to consider how people use words, descriptive. I agree his definition of democracy is twisted. But when he gives that definition for the word democracy, he means democracy and more specifically US democracy.
I think your argument is missing the forest for the trees here, because your argument's logic seems to be he isn't using the definition of the word properly therefore it isn't possible for him to mean that he wants to destroy that thing. As long as the definition of a word is understood by other people, then a speaker can assign a word whatever definition they want.
When people say he's just being sarcastic, they mean he doesn't really mean what he says. He really wants to destroy democracy. So by that definition of sarcastic, the one people are using, he is not being sarcastic. edit: typos
Yes, I am aware of the two basic schools of thought in linguistics, thank you. When people use words as defined in the dictionary then it is still descriptive though.
No, I'm saying that is entirely unrelated to the question of him being sarcastic or not.
He doesn't mean it, according to his own way of thinking at least. By our way of thinking he wants to destroy democracy, but not by his. That is why I'm saying he is being sarcastic.
Apart from my disagreement on this point voiced above, in that case people should change the dictionary. They haven't. If everybody uses their own definition then language becomes useless.
Edit: typo
If you mean people can use words as defined in dictionaries and those dictionaries are still descriptive then I agree.
A dictionary that uses a descriptive approach very well might. It doesn't matter if the dictionaries haven't. As long as people understand each other when they speak it's fine. People can understand meanings of words even if they aren't all enumerated in the dictionary. This is self evident from observing any number of conversations on or off line. The one example that comes to mind is the use of the word literally. People used it incorrectly, for when they meant figuratively. The response people gave was not, I do not understand what you said. They said you didn't mean literally you meant figuratively.
And on Merriam-Webster's website, they did add a new definition to the literally based on its new usage.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
The comment I replied to originally was using the word sarcasm to mean he doesn't mean what he says. So that's the definition I used in my reply. I understood what the writer of the commenter said without needing to refer to the dictionary first. As I said, his tone of voice certainly sounds sarcastic and seems to meet the definitions you listed. This isn't particular relevant though. Fascists use the cloak of ~~possibly~~ plausible deniability to mask what they say. A sarcastic tone of voice is one such tool.
I would say his characterization of US democracy, all the things he said the Democrats are doing in his joke, is his way of explaining why he doesn't value US democracy and therefore is why he is ok with destroying it. Based on the fact he doesn't like immigration or mail in voting, what he doesn't like about US democracy is that his minority doesn't fully control it. In his mind, both of those things deplete his minority's power. His speech does not indicate he values some other definition of democracy. When he says new American republic he means christofascist dictatorship. He knowingly wants to replace US democracy with a christofascist dictatorship, because then his minority will have total control over American life.
So nowhere in his line of thinking is he being sarcastic, as in he doesn't really mean it, because he doesn't value majority rule. He wants minority rule. He does not believe democracy means or is minority rule. Instead he believes democracy means and is majority rule and believes that is a bad thing. When the only real difference between our definitions is that we believe majority rule is good and he believes it's bad, we're all not only talking about the same thing, but we also all know the thing he wants to destroy is US democracy. edit: typo
You are flipping definitions here. Originally you said by a descriptive definition it's sarcasm when you do not mean it (which aligns with the dictionary definition by the way, so I'm still confused why you made that point at all). He says he doesn't mean it, in his speech, verbatim. Your or my interpretation of his other actions and politics doesn't matter to the question of whether he is being sarcastic. I'm done with this conversation now, good bye.
I've been consistent with this definition in my argument.
You argument seemed to be about relying on dictionary definitions to determine what fascists are saying in their speeches. This choice lead you argument to the wrong conclusion.
I've watched the CPAC speech three times now. Where does he say this?
I think our interpretations could not be more important. Democracy and people's lives depend on everyone's ability to recognize fascism. A key part of that is analyzing the speaker's actions and political views to determine what he actually wants and believes.
Ok, fuck. Against my better judgement and because I'm sufficiently drunk, here I go again... Drunk text. You were warned.
Let me start off with saying that I empathise with your point. I get what you are saying ultimately, I think. And if you see that on your Lemmy instance, I'm not the one downvoting you. I think your heart is in the right place.
But I really don't see your point about the sarcasm question. It's not a question. It's there. By definition. Why is this the hill you want to die on?
I mean the rest of his speech is just crazy over crazy. The MAGAdonians? I mean come on it's a goldmine for proving the fuck out of him being a fascist, but you are going for the one trap he lays you, where he is obviously being sarcastic. This is not going to dismantle his larger argument to anyone who might even vaguely relate to it, on the contrary. You need to do better.
But you asked, so here I go again:
He starts out with saying "most dangerous speech to democracy" in a mocking voice, then seriously "not just drain the swamp burn it to the ground". The whole thing drips of sarcasm from the start. Money quotes right here.
"Shining city on a hill, drain swamp, bla bla".
Then he lists three sources who he apparently suggests mis-cited him, Jeff Reid, Morning Joe, Mark Hamil. (?) He is mocking their accusations that he would "end democracy". "We have to end it, that's what the media told me". This couldn't be more clearly sarcastic.
Then he starts to explain his plan to end democracy, which is a list of things Republicans have accused the Democrats of doing that they consider an attack on democracy. The stolen election check-list™ I have documented in another comment. Again clearly mocking the "other side", hence sarcastic.
He ends this part of the speech with saying:
Again, clearly telling people that he is being sarcastic, outright, into their faces. He does not mean "real democracy™", he means "fake democracy™".
It's there. And I don't get why you are trying to prove that it's not, when there is so much bullshit in it that you could go for instead.
Anyway, you will not find any luck in insisting somebody isn't sarcastic when they most clearly are. This will convince nobody. You need to appeal to their better senses, like "real" Christianity, the American Dream, Human rights, or whatever it takes for them.
I mean even he cleverly does this in his speech, extending an open hand to anybody and everybody, even the Swifties? Like they have a somewhat coherent narrative that people will follow, and you have to admit this guy is not bad at making propaganda for it. And IMHO you are falling for his taunt here. He challenged the public to quote him on this, because he could say it was sarcastic. Because he is.
I'm mean don't ask me how to stop the fucking fascist in the end. Some relatively influential German politician just proposed what essentially amounts to forced labour for all immigrants for several months to horrendous "wages", like <1$/h wages. In fucking Germany! The gall! So yeah, I'm not really sure what to do about it either.
If this is what drinking and texting produces, then more people on social media should be drinking.
This is his shallow lie, where he mischaracterizes democracy and says it authoritarian. In usual Republican double speak he makes his authoritarian takeover sound like a movement for ensuring freedoms when it most assuredly will take them away. He really believes that the Democrats have done all of the things or that the things they've actually done are harmful as listed in his joke. The whole joke boils down to, "no you", with an alternate universe worth of lies.
It would be sarcastic if he wanted to preserve democracy. He wants to destroy democracy. So it's not sarcastic. His goal is a christofascist dictatorship.
I can only hope you're wrong. There is really nothing else to say to people at this point except that the Republicans mean it when they say want to destroy democracy. If they win in November, the Republicans are planning on dismantling our democracy by replacing nonpartisan members of the executive branch with partisan yes men, as detailed in Project 2025. They may not hold elections at all, but if they do, there won't be many people to run against them since they are undoubtedly going to jail political opponents. The amount of harm Trump can do in the next four years really isn't worth thinking about because there isn't a hard limit. He wants to use the Insurrection Act to declare martial law and deploy the military in American cities on day 1. The only way to stop these fascists is to out vote them, until someone can figure out a vaccine for self-destructive ideologies. edit: typos
A leader, like a grifter, should always know how his audience is likely to respond to certain words, regardless of the spin he puts on them. Donald Trump, television personality and renowned wage-withholding, mouth-flapping scumbag, certainly has the experience to know this. To pretend that his delivery is not as much a part of the ruse as the code words themselves - that is, the part that's for your benefit, rather than theirs - is to ignore what you already know about the man - the lies he's told, the things he's done, the way he acts, all of which obviously screams "smarmy creep". You can predict every argument he makes in court based on what a bone-stupid lying simpleton he is as well, blurting out whatever comes into his head just so there's a ball in the air he can try to distract you with. He'd be a good stage magician, if stage magic weren't hard, but it is hard, so you can be assured he's never tried it. He spent his whole first presidency watching tv.
Ok, well then. He was being sarcastic. I guess the rest of the overall trend of the cons and the Republican Party going ever more extreme, ever more fascist is just cosplay.