Supporters of Trump and his policies go out of their way to try and soften and explain what he "really" means by saying to ignore what he or his advisors literally say. I think this is dangerously naive and the time is past giving the benefit of the doubt and sticking to rigid logical standards. This isn't philosophy class and this stuff poses real world dangers.
The Obama administration has deported many many illegal immigrants and yet I've never felt that way for them.
There is historical precedent in this particular instance...
There is ample historic precedent for regimes and loud minorities implementing agendas by first going after the easiest targets (jews, kurds,hooligans,illegal immigrants) then slightly generalising (disabled, kurdish supporters, all "potentially violent", immigrants in general) in some steps until the end goal (political opponents, political opponents, political opponents and...political opponents). Hence in this case, the slippery slope is a given and justified.
Why do you think they are authoritarians. I don't get this.
The right in the US is about freedom. The left is the part of authoritarianism. The progressive left especially has incredibly tight control of freedom of speech. Everything they don't like is called hate speech, all discussions are shut down, and PC terminology means that it doesn't matter what you say anymore, if you accidentally choose the wrong words, you are finished.
Except when it comes to a woman's right to choose, the freedom to assemble and protest, freedom from religion, freedom of the press, freedom of movement, freedom to use the bathroom associated with your gender, freedom to use drugs recreationally, or any other area of personal freedoms you'd care to name wherein - to be really, really generous - the right doesn't perform any better than the left.
Everything else you mentioned can be democratically overturned if enough people support it.
> woman's right to choose
I consider myself on the right, but I support women's right to choose. The religious right is on the way out. Yes, it use to be a big issue, but its not anymore. It was not a campaign issue, and Trump says he will "leave it to the states".
> freedom to assemble and protest
Can I have examples of this? We 100% support your right to peaceful protest and assembly. Can you provide some examples of ways Trump's administration is cracking down on this?
If you are talking about non-peaceful protests like blocking highways, preventing people from getting to work, ANTIFA wearing masks and attacking people at rallies then this is not acceptable and I support laws to crack down on this more.
> freedom from religion
Tick.
> freedom of the press
Examples that are not fake news please?
> freedom of movement
What do you mean here? US citizens who are not under parole or incarcerated can move freely anywhere inside the US.
> freedom to use the bathroom associated with your gender
What about freedom to use the bathroom associated with your own sex (physical M/F)?
Two sides to every "freedom" issue.
> freedom to use drugs recreationally
You want crack made legal? Weed legalisation is non-partisan now.
> personal freedoms
If these personal freedoms you talk of prevent you from being able to assemble and vote, then I support them.
Otherwise, laws should be enacted based on debate and democratic processes.
- Is it the act of calling a homosexual person, gay instead of fag?
- Is it referring to black people as african-americans and not niggers?
- Is it referring to Muslim people as muslim people and not ragheads?
- Is it referring to people of east asian heritage as Asian and not chinks?
Its 2017, so if we have to watch our words so that we dont disrespect people who have been humiliated for years, its not much to ask for. Unless you put up everyday with something that offends you, you have no idea how much your "PC terminology" helps a disadvantaged person feel comfortable in their own skin.
Using the term 'homosexual person' is not PC. Are you a homophobe or what? :P
http://americablog.com/2007/07/dear-washington-post-please-s...
https://www.quora.com/Which-is-more-appropriate-homosexual-o...
If I was on the left, I could make a big deal out of your incorrect use of the word homosexual, and I could make it look like you are as bad as someone calling someone a fag in an intentionally derogative way.
> Is it referring to black people as african-americans and not niggers?
Black people is not PC. Dude, are you a racist or what?
The correct term is person-of-color. But do not say "colored person" or you will receive a massive social media outcry.
"But I am not a racist you say?". Doesn't matter, once you say the wrong word, you are already one of them.
> Is it referring to Muslim people as muslim people and not ragheads? > Is it referring to people of east asian heritage as Asian and not chinks?
2017 PC is not about using derrogatory terms.
> In 2017...its not much to ask for.
It seems like it is for you, because in your post you have used the incorrect terms.
Now, are you a racist and a homophobe?
The right would assume you are not.
The left will be keeping their eye on you, and now have material to take you down in the future if they want to.
"Freedom of speech" has nothing to do with social opprobrium. Freedom of speech means the government is not going to step in and silence you for failing to use "PC terminology". It does not mean you should be immune from other people deciding you said something distasteful enough that they no longer want to employ you or associate with you.
I think a lot of democrats don't see what is happening in the progressive left. I use to identify as a democrat, but after seeing this stuff, I no longer can.
You can associate with whoever you like. 100% agree.
Re: employment. So if you accidentally referred to someone as "colored" instead of "person-of-color", and you get fired for it...you are happy about this? You want to live in this kind of society?
I'm specifically referring to the current WH. It's authoritarian because it refuses to accept facts and wants to distort them to fit its own narrative. It will discredit the press if it does not "fall in line".
And on the right, its the press who is distorting facts for their own narrative.
The press being discredited is justified. And there is no problem with this. Imagine if all the MSM press was like Fox News? What would you say then? Your argument would flip around 180 degrees and you would be fine with news being discredited.
The press are just people. Look at how hard it is to have a debate with a liberal these days - do you think newsrooms would enjoy having Trump supporters as co-workers. Nope. They like having people around them with the same opinions, so we get the liberal MSM echo-chamber.
> The press being discredited is justified.
Its not simple being discredited, its being regarded as unnecessary. Sure you can discredit the press they're not perfect. But you cannot attempt to discard them or regard any criticism as fake.
> And there is no problem with this. Imagine if all the MSM press was like Fox News? What would you say then? Your argument would flip around 180 degrees and you would be fine with news being discredited.
Excuse me? Do you have a point here? Sure if all the food I ever ate started smelling bad, I would say all food in the world smells bad. What is your point?
> The press are just people. Look at how hard it is to have a debate with a liberal these days - do you think newsrooms would enjoy having Trump supporters as co-workers. Nope. They like having people around them with the same opinions, so we get the liberal MSM echo-chamber.
Bullshit. The reason they have Trump supporters is because a lot of American people are Trump supporters. And their willingness to work with people with different beliefs shows that they are willing to debate with them. You are contradicting yourself.
All of this is, again, besides the point that the current WH is authoritarian.
How so? Where do Trump supporters and right-wingers get their news from?
If you are on the right, you look at MSNBC, CNN, NYT, etc. and see a ridiculously biased and censored view of the world. So distorted that no one could see Trump winning.
Their viewers are mostly liberal and because of PC-culture there is a very narrow acceptable world-view. To write an article pro-anything-Trump did would put careers at risk.
Liberals receive a very censored view of the world. The ethos being something like, we need to control the facts you hear about otherwise everyone will turn into racists.
Its ironic how they are shouting fascist and big brother 1984, when they are the ones who are censoring the news, physically preventing ppl speaking at events, not engaging in debate, banning words, etc.
Look at wikileaks - use to be a hero of the left, but now it is an enemy.
A progressive-run government would be much more authoritarian.
---
> Excuse me? Do you have a point here? Sure if all the food I ever ate started smelling bad, I would say all food in the world smells bad. What is your point?
You perceive Fox News as a bad source of news in the same way that the right perceive the MSM as a bad source of news.
Its wrong to discredit the MSM...when its on your side. But if the tables are turned, you would feel the same way about the MSM.
> Bullshit. The reason they have Trump supporters is because a lot of American people are Trump supporters. And their willingness to work with people with different beliefs shows that they are willing to debate with them. You are contradicting yourself.
You think that there is 50% republicans running around the NYTimes newsroom? You think the people who work at CNN are anywhere close to 50% republican. No way. I am saying they hire like-minded people because its difficult to constantly be having arguments all day.
> All of this is, again, besides the point that the current WH is authoritarian.
> pm90: Definition: favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.
I really, really don't see this, compared to the behaviour of the progressive left.
I do not see personal freedoms of US citizens being violated. I see illegal immigrants being deported, laws being enforced, national borders being secured, and freedoms being protected.
Progressive-left is authoritarianism waiting to happen.
But I really wish you could convince me of this WH authoritarianism. I'm just not seeing it.
IMO authoritarianism is totally orthogonal to right/left. It's clearly the case that members of both espouse changes that would limit our freedoms.
But I do not see the same kind of stuff from the right.
I'm not saying its always like this, but right now, this is how it is.
I mean give me an example where someone's free speech on the left was prevented?
Protests blocking highways and roads to right-wing events.
During the campaign name a single time when Trump supporters tried to prevent a left-wing speaking event happening?
The right is like "hey i think you are wrong, here is why".
The left is like "hey i think you are wrong, don't talk to me".
The market is up because of an irrational belief that Trump is going to enact the pipe dreams of the SeekingAlpha crowd with massive tax cuts that the Democrats are never going to approve.
Statistics show most likely there is going to be a big correction and a recession on Trump's watch. Never in the US's 200+ year history has it gone more than 11 years without a recession, check the NBER data.
So given the likely downturn in the markets when people realize that this stuff isn't going to be enacted, will speak up then because it's no longer "awesome" for you?
To be clear, I think presidents have little to do with market moves. So they should not be accredited with gains nor blamed for falls.
Im well positioned for the bear market
Rhetoric aside, as you pointed out, this is only the beginning. Authoritarians always need a scrapegoat to blame for "failed policies". Once one group is eliminated, on to another.