Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 35 of 44

Thread: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    39,456

    Default Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    I made the argument sometime back that taking down statues and other monuments (that I didn't think belonged up) would anger those who wanted those symbols to remain.

    I argued that force begets force, and a path that would, hopefully, lessen the number of people who wanted those symbols to remain would be a better path.

    Taking down a flag or a statue angers those who oppose removing it, and, IMO, made a bunch of people more angry and easier to rile up

    And Trump riled them up. No way to measure, but it's my opinion, that had these symbols not been removed, he'd have riled up fewer people.

    I believe removing these symbols was a contributing factor to what followed. It fueled the anger of the white supremacists. It made a bunch of people feel good, but it made another group very angry.
    "alternative facts (lies)" are a cancer eating through a democracy, and will kill it. 1st amendment is not absolute.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    26,573

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    I think, and I have argued this here, that it is better to leave statues and suchlike in place and to annotate them on their plinths. Similarly with the names of institutions. Keep the name but see both sides of the individual.
    IMAGINES VEL NON FUERINT

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    26,689

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    AC-B, I believe many would agree with you. But... you're making too much sense; I doubt you'd be electable - that, and ya talk funny!
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    39,456

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett View Post
    I think, and I have argued this here, that it is better to leave statues and suchlike in place and to annotate them on their plinths. Similarly with the names of institutions. Keep the name but see both sides of the individual.
    That was my suggestion, which fell on deaf ears. Leave the statue up, but put a more complete and accurate plaque with it.

    Taking it down only makes those who want it up more angry. Arguing over what history goes with it might be educational.

    I remember saying we can do things like deputy Fife or like Sheriff Taylor.
    "alternative facts (lies)" are a cancer eating through a democracy, and will kill it. 1st amendment is not absolute.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    26,689

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    Yeah. Turns out to be a more complex, bigger problem than I suspect most of us anticipated. Did anybody really think such a large part of the population was so angry/off their nut? I didn't. I've family who will no longer speak to me, simply because they are 'true believers', and did not appreciate my 'lack of support' for the mangomussolini. That I'd have family go so far down a rabbit hole.... unthinkable.

    My sis, who used to shake her head at our older sis, who was so angry, wouldn't talk to any of us.... she now holds that same mantle. I don't know WTH happened - and she won't talk.
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    northwestern Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,209

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    Quote Originally Posted by George Jung View Post
    AC-B, I believe many would agree with you. But... you're making too much sense; I doubt you'd be electable - that, and ya talk funny!
    That didn't stop Arnold!

    Tom
    You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

    www.tompamperin.com

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    53,253

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    Reminds me of this controversy It is a mirror image of the issue John raises.
    The National Trust has amended a controversial exhibition at the new Giant's Causeway visitor centre.
    An audio exhibit revealed how people's explanation of how the Causeway was formed developed as scientific understanding improved.
    Young earth creationists believe the Causeway was formed 6,000 years ago. The vast majority of scientists say it was formed 60m years ago.
    The trust says it has always supported the "scientific view" of its formation.
    The Causeway is a Unesco World Heritage Site and features more than 40,000 interlocking basalt columns.
    The £18.5m centre was opened on 3 July.
    The National Trust decided to carry out a review of the exhibit after the creationist element provoked what it termed a "wide and mixed response".
    In July, an online campaign to remove it began.
    A new piece of audio, approximately 20 seconds long, now replaces the previous recording.
    Graham Thompson, project director for the Giant's Causeway, said the change would clear up "any misunderstanding there may have been".
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-19814284

    Some background to the story.
    The exchanges end with a further clip stating: "This debate continues today for some people, who have an understanding of the formation of the earth which is different from that of current mainstream science.
    "Young Earth Creationists believe that the earth was created some 6,000 years ago. This is based on a specific interpretation of the Bible and in particular the account of creation in the book of Genesis.
    "Some people around the world, and specifically here in Northern Ireland, share this perspective.
    "Young Earth Creationists continue to debate questions about the age of the earth. As we have seen from the past, and understand today, perhaps the Giant's Causeway will continue to prompt awe and wonder, and arouse debate and challenging questions for as long as visitors come to see it."
    Northern Ireland evangelical umbrella group, the Caleb Foundation, welcomed the inclusion.
    In a statement, the Foundation's chairman, Wallace Thompson, said: "As an umbrella organisation which represents the interests of mainstream evangelical Christians in Northern Ireland, we have worked closely with the National Trust over many months with a view to ensuring that the new Causeway Visitor Centre includes an acknowledgement both of the legitimacy of the creationist position on the origins of the unique Causeway stones and of the ongoing debate around this.
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...w-7917687.html

    Norn Iron and the DUP have a shed load of Young Earthers. And Irish Jokes are no longer PC.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    26,573

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    Quote Originally Posted by George Jung View Post
    Yeah. Turns out to be a more complex, bigger problem than I suspect most of us anticipated. Did anybody really think such a large part of the population was so angry/off their nut? I didn't. I've family who will no longer speak to me, simply because they are 'true believers', and did not appreciate my 'lack of support' for the mangomussolini. That I'd have family go so far down a rabbit hole.... unthinkable.

    My sis, who used to shake her head at our older sis, who was so angry, wouldn't talk to any of us.... she now holds that same mantle. I don't know WTH happened - and she won't talk.
    We (and I have seen this demonstrated here in the UK in last week’s local elections) are nowhere near understanding, let alone starting to be able to cure, the boiling mass of fear and rage that the right wing media jocks are able to stir up in people.

    The right wingers are told that the world is a simple place and their simple catch phrases will sort it all out as soon as the Great Liberal Secret Conspiracy to rule the planet, steal from people with yesterday’s skills, and eat their babies, has been dealt with. The fools are terrified.
    IMAGINES VEL NON FUERINT

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    26,573

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Reminds me of this controversy It is a mirror image of the issue John raises.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-19814284

    Some background to the story.
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...w-7917687.html

    Norn Iron and the DUP have a shed load of Young Earthers. And Irish Jokes are no longer PC.
    Creationist twaddle isn’t “legitimate”. It hasn’t been since the 1860s.

    Some people need to be fired.
    IMAGINES VEL NON FUERINT

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Cantão - Brazil
    Posts
    14,601

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    I'll try to take the historical view on this.

    Taking down statues that represent an oppressive past has been going on since time immemorial. It is a valid political expression, just like putting up statues in the first place. New statues, representative of the times, end up being put in the place of the removed ones. The removed ones, often damaged during their ritual toppling, end up left in forgotten corners or buried someplace. Some of them are rediscovered in later ages, and placed in museums where we can appreciate any artistic value they have while reflecting on the tides of human history.

    I think it's all good.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    26,573

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post
    I'll try to take the historical view on this.

    Taking down statues that represent an oppressive past has been going on since time immemorial. It is a valid political expression, just like putting up statues in the first place. New statues, representative of the times, end up being put in the place of the removed ones. The removed ones, often damaged during their ritual toppling, end up left in forgotten corners or buried someplace. Some of them are rediscovered in later ages, and placed in museums where we can appreciate any artistic value they have while reflecting on the tides of human history.

    I think it's all good.
    This statue of the Emperor Augustus was toppled and the head buried beneath a staircase in 24BC - quite early in his reign!



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mero%C3%AB_Head
    IMAGINES VEL NON FUERINT

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    110,005

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?
    right wing radio, fox news, internet based conspiracy theorists have been stacking the kindling for years; add foreign interference (which you really can't be pissed off about, lest you be the ultimate hypocrite)

    then mix in an ignorant base with misplaced anger for being ignored for decades - they really are precious
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    the hills
    Posts
    61,223

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post
    I'll try to take the historical view on this.

    Taking down statues that represent an oppressive past has been going on since time immemorial. It is a valid political expression, just like putting up statues in the first place. New statues, representative of the times, end up being put in the place of the removed ones. The removed ones, often damaged during their ritual toppling, end up left in forgotten corners or buried someplace. Some of them are rediscovered in later ages, and placed in museums where we can appreciate any artistic value they have while reflecting on the tides of human history.

    I think it's all good.
    I agree

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    26,689

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    Caught this in Donn's favorite newspaper, the NYTimes. Insightful.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/07/w...gtype=Homepage

    ‘Belonging Is Stronger Than Facts’: The Age of Misinformation

    Social and psychological forces are combining to make the sharing and believing of misinformation an endemic problem with no easy solution.

    By Max Fisher



    May 7, 2021
    Leer en español
    There’s a decent chance you’ve had at least one of these rumors, all false, relayed to you as fact recently: that President Biden plans to force Americans to eat less meat; that Virginia is eliminating advanced math in schools to advance racial equality; and that border officials are mass-purchasing copies of Vice President Kamala Harris’s book to hand out to refugee children.

    All were amplified by partisan actors. But you’re just as likely, if not more so, to have heard it relayed from someone you know. And you may have noticed that these cycles of falsehood-fueled outrage keep recurring.
    We are in an era of endemic misinformation — and outright disinformation. Plenty of bad actors are helping the trend along. But the real drivers, some experts believe, are social and psychological forces that make people prone to sharing and believing misinformation in the first place. And those forces are on the rise.
    “Why are misperceptions about contentious issues in politics and science seemingly so persistent and difficult to correct?” Brendan Nyhan, a Dartmouth College political scientist, posed in a new paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

    It’s not for want of good information, which is ubiquitous. Exposure to good information does not reliably instill accurate beliefs anyway. Rather, Dr. Nyhan writes, a growing body of evidence suggests that the ultimate culprits are “cognitive and memory limitations, directional motivations to defend or support some group identity or existing belief, and messages from other people and political elites.”Put more simply, people become more prone to misinformation when three things happen. First, and perhaps most important, is when conditions in society make people feel a greater need for what social scientists call ingrouping — a belief that their social identity is a source of strength and superiority, and that other groups can be blamed for their problems.






    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    26,689

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    Continued....

    Growing hostility between the two halves of America feeds social distrust, which makes people more prone to rumor and falsehood. It also makes people cling much more tightly to their partisan identities. And once our brains switch into “identity-based conflict” mode, we become desperately hungry for information that will affirm that sense of us versus them, and much less concerned about things like truth or accuracy.


    The second driver of the misinformation era is the emergence of high-profile political figures who encourage their followers to indulge their desire for identity-affirming misinformation. After all, an atmosphere of all-out political conflict often benefits those leaders, at least in the short term, by rallying people behind them.

    Then there is the third factor — a shift to social media, which is a powerful outlet for composers of disinformation, a pervasive vector for misinformation itself and a multiplier of the other risk factors.

    “Media has changed, the environment has changed, and that has a potentially big impact on our natural behavior,” said William J. Brady, a Yale University social psychologist.


    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    26,689

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    Hmmmm... sounds vaguely familiar...

    As people become more prone to misinformation, opportunists and charlatans are also getting better at exploiting this. That can mean tear-it-all-down populists who rise on promises to smash the establishment and control minorities. It can also mean government agencies or freelance hacker groups stirring up social divisions abroad for their benefit. But the roots of the crisis go deeper.
    “The problem is that when we encounter opposing views in the age and context of social media, it’s not like reading them in a newspaper while sitting alone,” the sociologist Zeynep Tufekci wrote in a much-circulated MIT Technology Review article. “It’s like hearing them from the opposing team while sitting with our fellow fans in a football stadium. Online, we’re connected with our communities, and we seek approval from our like-minded peers. We bond with our team by yelling at the fans of the other one.”
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    39,456

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Mahan View Post
    Just to argue, if a now controversial monument is left alone to stand where it's been a landmark and subliminal part of the culture, too, an annotation on the plynth isn't enough to satisfy the controversy.

    If we had had an idea that the cartoon candidate would actually turn out to be the sh!t bomb we actually got, would it have made a difference if some contingent was unhappy about the monuments or not, and then, should we vet future candidates for things that might piss off some component of the voting public? We oughta let some criminals or anti-social subversive no-fly-list types just keep doing what they want because if we clamp down they might incite their uncooth ignorant cohort to vote for a thug?
    My thinking is relatively simple. Making these people more angry, and driven more by emotion, made it easier to get more of them to a point where they stormed our Capital. In that sense, it contributed.

    People get into a position where they have the ability to remove a statue, and they do so, it angers those who don't want it removed.

    I'd much prefer to find some path where, a decade from now, almost no one wants some particular statue to remain.

    Human nature is such that force tends to get met with force. I think the removal of these 'things' helped get more people to invade our Capital.

    Would the invasion have happened anyway? Maybe, but I suspect it would have involved fewer people, and it may not have happened at all.

    Is it unreasonable to think the people angered by the removal of these things would tend to get behind Trump and white nationalist movements? Did it now swell their ranks?
    "alternative facts (lies)" are a cancer eating through a democracy, and will kill it. 1st amendment is not absolute.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    39,456

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    Quote Originally Posted by George Jung View Post
    Yeah. Turns out to be a more complex, bigger problem than I suspect most of us anticipated. Did anybody really think such a large part of the population was so angry/off their nut? I didn't. I've family who will no longer speak to me, simply because they are 'true believers', and did not appreciate my 'lack of support' for the mangomussolini. That I'd have family go so far down a rabbit hole.... unthinkable.

    My sis, who used to shake her head at our older sis, who was so angry, wouldn't talk to any of us.... she now holds that same mantle. I don't know WTH happened - and she won't talk.
    I did. People are far more often driven by emotion than logic. Anger is an emotion. Very hard to reason with angry people.
    "alternative facts (lies)" are a cancer eating through a democracy, and will kill it. 1st amendment is not absolute.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    39,456

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post
    I'll try to take the historical view on this.

    Taking down statues that represent an oppressive past has been going on since time immemorial. It is a valid political expression, just like putting up statues in the first place. New statues, representative of the times, end up being put in the place of the removed ones. The removed ones, often damaged during their ritual toppling, end up left in forgotten corners or buried someplace. Some of them are rediscovered in later ages, and placed in museums where we can appreciate any artistic value they have while reflecting on the tides of human history.

    I think it's all good.
    I didn't say the statues should not come down. I said taking them down would have a reaction of anger from those who want them up.
    "alternative facts (lies)" are a cancer eating through a democracy, and will kill it. 1st amendment is not absolute.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Cantão - Brazil
    Posts
    14,601

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smith View Post

    I'd much prefer to find some path where, a decade from now, almost no one wants some particular statue to remain.
    A decade? Try a few centuries. Stalin statues are going back up in places. Saddam still has a following in Iraq. There would be statues to Hitler with lots of supporters in multiple countries if it were allowed.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    The Garden State
    Posts
    9,123

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    I am going to go on the opposite tack here. Would those statues have gotten toppled if Trump had not been in office? While we can argue that toppling them allowed The Donald to rile up his base about "cancel culture" and all that, was it actually because his base was getting all riled up and the bigots were out in force that people decided to topple them in an attempt to slow the advancement of bigotry?

    Just a thought, cause and effect is not always so easily seen.
    "If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping with a mosquito"

    -Dalai Lama

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Freeland, WA
    Posts
    29,411

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    I literally don't think we white folk on this forum have much agency to comment.

    But as long as the issue is here, I am a firm opponent of the glorification of anything Confederate, and I will be damned if the majority have to kowtow to reactionaries who believe The South Shall Rise Agin. Screw them and their statues.
    Gerard>
    Langley, WA

    Don't believe Republican lies.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    northwestern Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,209

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smith View Post
    My thinking is relatively simple. Making these people more angry, and driven more by emotion, made it easier to get more of them to a point where they stormed our Capital. In that sense, it contributed.

    People get into a position where they have the ability to remove a statue, and they do so, it angers those who don't want it removed.

    I'd much prefer to find some path where, a decade from now, almost no one wants some particular statue to remain.

    Human nature is such that force tends to get met with force. I think the removal of these 'things' helped get more people to invade our Capital.

    Would the invasion have happened anyway? Maybe, but I suspect it would have involved fewer people, and it may not have happened at all.

    Is it unreasonable to think the people angered by the removal of these things would tend to get behind Trump and white nationalist movements? Did it now swell their ranks?
    John,

    it's an interesting argument, and I admire it in many ways.

    But I think that history suggests the opposite: that meaningful reform does not happen unless it is forced upon the people who don't want it. I doubt there is a slower, less antagonistic way to make it happen. I could be wrong.

    Tom
    You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

    www.tompamperin.com

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    53,253

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett View Post
    Creationist twaddle isn’t “legitimate”. It hasn’t been since the 1860s.

    Some people need to be fired.
    A hell of a lot of Norn Iron Voters and DUP politicians think that it is legit, just as a hell of a lot of WASPs think that their cause in the US Southern Rebellion was just.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    53,253

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    Quote Originally Posted by Art Haberland View Post
    I am going to go on the opposite tack here. Would those statues have gotten toppled if Trump had not been in office? While we can argue that toppling them allowed The Donald to rile up his base about "cancel culture" and all that, was it actually because his base was getting all riled up and the bigots were out in force that people decided to topple them in an attempt to slow the advancement of bigotry?

    Just a thought, cause and effect is not always so easily seen.
    Yes they would. It was not about Trump, it was about Institutional racism, which would have existed with a sensible GOP POTUS and possibly with a Dem in the Oval Office as well.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    the hills
    Posts
    61,223

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smith View Post
    I made the argument sometime back that taking down statues and other monuments (that I didn't think belonged up) would anger those who wanted those symbols to remain.

    I argued that force begets force, and a path that would, hopefully, lessen the number of people who wanted those symbols to remain would be a better path.

    Taking down a flag or a statue angers those who oppose removing it, and, IMO, made a bunch of people more angry and easier to rile up

    And Trump riled them up. No way to measure, but it's my opinion, that had these symbols not been removed, he'd have riled up fewer people.

    I believe removing these symbols was a contributing factor to what followed. It fueled the anger of the white supremacists. It made a bunch of people feel good, but it made another group very angry.
    Of course Trump is not the flaming white nationalist movement, he is not only not the ONLY fuel to the fire he’s not any fuel. He’s the arsonist of the decade voted in by his party and now the GOP is burning from within. Focusing on statues as though the white nationalist movement would be mollified by retaining statues is misguided. Their movement isn’t about statues.


    https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/...251240779.html

    We keep hitting new lows.

    So perhaps we ought not be surprised that the GOP, the party that brought us the insurrection of Jan. 6, now presents the public, if figurative, execution of Liz Cheney. At this writing, she is not yet politically dead, but the vultures are certainly tying their bibs.

    Cheney, you understand, committed no sin against her party’s retrogressive orthodoxy. She is still as anti-abortion and pro-guns as the next hard-line conservative.

    No, the new low here is that she is being stripped of her role in the party’s leadership for a failure to lie. Which is to say, she won’t parrot the inane claim that the election of 2020 was “stolen,” and that the 45th president was ousted by deception and fraud. As if that were not bad enough, she also accepted a fist bump greeting from his Democratic successor, President Joe Biden, as Biden entered the House chamber for a speech before a joint session of Congress. In other words, she was civil to a political opponent.

    For heresies such as these, Cheney stands pilloried as a traitor by a political party whose distinction from a Jonestown- or Waco-like cult grows ever more difficult to discern. It is a sign of how truly fakakta things have become that Republicans like Cheney, former President George W. Bush, former Speaker John Boehner, Rep. Adam Kinzinger and Sen. Mitt Romney have become symbols of courage on the left — and treason on the right — simply because their principles are insufficiently elastic to let them deny reality.

    Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/...#storylink=cpy

    Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/...#storylink=cpy
    Last edited by LeeG; 05-09-2021 at 02:14 PM.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    26,689

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    So why is Cheney on the chopping block? 'She can't let go of the past!'

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...id=mailsignout

    "Republicans are almost completely unified in a single mission to oppose the radical, dangerous Biden agenda and win back the majority in the midterm election," Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., told "Fox News Sunday." "And any other focus other than that is a distraction from stopping the Biden agenda."

    One Republican leader who apparently did not get that message: Trump.
    Within the past six weeks, Trump has released more than 20 statements falsely claiming last fall's election featured "massive fraud," was "rigged" or "stolen," and that he "won by a landslide," among other electoral assertions. He's praised "great patriots" overseeing a partisan audit of ballots in Arizona as well as an audit in a small New Hampshire town.
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Central Coast, Ca
    Posts
    30,966

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    Quote Originally Posted by George Jung View Post
    Yeah. Turns out to be a more complex, bigger problem than I suspect most of us anticipated. Did anybody really think such a large part of the population was so angry/off their nut?...

    Being or playing at "dumb" or uneducated is in vogue now more than ever.
    A badge of honor to be labeled "not elite", isn't it?

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    66,099

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    Devolution continues unabated…………………..

    We used to get Adventists and Mormons knocking on the door. I would always ask them "Are you a fool or a charlatan?" They don't come around any more.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    39,456

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    Quote Originally Posted by Art Haberland View Post
    I am going to go on the opposite tack here. Would those statues have gotten toppled if Trump had not been in office? While we can argue that toppling them allowed The Donald to rile up his base about "cancel culture" and all that, was it actually because his base was getting all riled up and the bigots were out in force that people decided to topple them in an attempt to slow the advancement of bigotry?

    Just a thought, cause and effect is not always so easily seen.
    Chicken or the egg? I think they contributed to the storm. It was an angry mob that stormed the Capital on Jan 6.

    I voice the opinion that SOME of that anger came from the forced removal of statues. I don't think there's any way to measure how much that contributed to the invasion on the 6th, but I don't think one can honestly say it was not a factor at all.
    "alternative facts (lies)" are a cancer eating through a democracy, and will kill it. 1st amendment is not absolute.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    39,456

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerarddm View Post
    I literally don't think we white folk on this forum have much agency to comment.

    But as long as the issue is here, I am a firm opponent of the glorification of anything Confederate, and I will be damned if the majority have to kowtow to reactionaries who believe The South Shall Rise Agin. Screw them and their statues.
    That's fine, but force begets force. Actions have reactions. Laws of nature, no?

    And it's not as if we're debating if we should put a statue up, or if we should name a fort, a school, etc. after these people. Those places have already been named, and the statues were already in place.

    Taking them down, or changing the name on a building is simply 'yelling louder' to win an argument.

    I don't believe those statues should have gone up in the first place, and I'd not have put such names on forts, but these things are just things, and it's unrealistic, imo, to change names, remove symbols, and such, and believe there'd be no reaction. Anger as a reaction was quite predictable, and, therefore, avoidable if more thought was given to this entire situation.
    Last edited by John Smith; 05-09-2021 at 05:48 PM.
    "alternative facts (lies)" are a cancer eating through a democracy, and will kill it. 1st amendment is not absolute.

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Do you have a warrant?
    Posts
    10,137

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smith View Post
    I made the argument sometime back that taking down statues and other monuments (that I didn't think belonged up) would anger those who wanted those symbols to remain.

    I argued that force begets force, and a path that would, hopefully, lessen the number of people who wanted those symbols to remain would be a better path.

    Taking down a flag or a statue angers those who oppose removing it, and, IMO, made a bunch of people more angry and easier to rile up

    And Trump riled them up. No way to measure, but it's my opinion, that had these symbols not been removed, he'd have riled up fewer people.

    I believe removing these symbols was a contributing factor to what followed. It fueled the anger of the white supremacists. It made a bunch of people feel good, but it made another group very angry.
    You have made me think. I was in favor of taking down the statues but this makes me think. Here's why:

    (edited) "Taking away, or even threatening to take away, people's guns angers those who have them, and, IMO, makes a bunch of people more angry and easier to rile up."

    Do you agree?
    When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave.

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    39,456

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    John,

    it's an interesting argument, and I admire it in many ways.

    But I think that history suggests the opposite: that meaningful reform does not happen unless it is forced upon the people who don't want it. I doubt there is a slower, less antagonistic way to make it happen. I could be wrong.

    Tom
    We forced it and they reacted. It led to Jan. 6.

    These are chunks of metal, or pieces of cloth, or letters on buildings.

    Man is capable of wisdom, patience, communication, etc. The object, I'd think, is to change hearts and minds. Instead we make people more entrenched, as to them, we proved their positions/beliefs, no matter how wrong they are.
    "alternative facts (lies)" are a cancer eating through a democracy, and will kill it. 1st amendment is not absolute.

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    39,456

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Yes they would. It was not about Trump, it was about Institutional racism, which would have existed with a sensible GOP POTUS and possibly with a Dem in the Oval Office as well.
    Very possibly, but Trump used this anger. He fed it. The beast grew.
    "alternative facts (lies)" are a cancer eating through a democracy, and will kill it. 1st amendment is not absolute.

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    39,456

    Default Re: Was Trump the only fuel to the fire?

    Quote Originally Posted by LeeG View Post
    Of course Trump is not the flaming white nationalist movement, he is not only not the ONLY fuel to the fire he’s not any fuel. He’s the arsonist of the decade voted in by his party and now the GOP is burning from within. Focusing on statues as though the white nationalist movement would be mollified by retaining statues is misguided. Their movement isn’t about statues.


    https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/...251240779.html

    We keep hitting new lows.

    So perhaps we ought not be surprised that the GOP, the party that brought us the insurrection of Jan. 6, now presents the public, if figurative, execution of Liz Cheney. At this writing, she is not yet politically dead, but the vultures are certainly tying their bibs.

    Cheney, you understand, committed no sin against her party’s retrogressive orthodoxy. She is still as anti-abortion and pro-guns as the next hard-line conservative.

    No, the new low here is that she is being stripped of her role in the party’s leadership for a failure to lie. Which is to say, she won’t parrot the inane claim that the election of 2020 was “stolen,” and that the 45th president was ousted by deception and fraud. As if that were not bad enough, she also accepted a fist bump greeting from his Democratic successor, President Joe Biden, as Biden entered the House chamber for a speech before a joint session of Congress. In other words, she was civil to a political opponent.

    For heresies such as these, Cheney stands pilloried as a traitor by a political party whose distinction from a Jonestown- or Waco-like cult grows ever more difficult to discern. It is a sign of how truly fakakta things have become that Republicans like Cheney, former President George W. Bush, former Speaker John Boehner, Rep. Adam Kinzinger and Sen. Mitt Romney have become symbols of courage on the left — and treason on the right — simply because their principles are insufficiently elastic to let them deny reality.

    Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/...#storylink=cpy

    Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/...#storylink=cpy
    Maybe I've not been clear. Trump took advantage of this white national anger. Removing their symbols made them more angry and more easily taken advantage of. To think you can simply remove those things they did not want removed without repercussions does not, IMO, take into account human nature.

    I am NOT arguing that the confederate flag should fly on government property. I'm not arguing these statues should have been erected.

    That flag was flying, those statues were erected. Taking them down had to anger those who wanted them up.

    That seems very basic. The question we cannot answer is the extent to which this anger helped bring about the invasion of the Capital.

    I submit it played a part. I submit that, at least, fewer people would have stormed that building, and at the very most, no one would have stormed that building.

    People should be able to reason with each other. But that requires a degree of civility, which cannot be obtained with actions that anger the other side.
    "alternative facts (lies)" are a cancer eating through a democracy, and will kill it. 1st amendment is not absolute.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •