Posted by intunderflow 4/17/2025
It doesn't have to be either-or. There's both generic anti-intellectualism, and specifically revenge for the protests.
A president reigning at will, no court being able to really stop the shit show and undoing former president's pardons while using pardons as a tool to side-track courts. The whole construct didn't -- and doesn't -- make sense, if you still aim for anything not being despotism.
Proof?
While someone who has previously said that the Jews are importing immigrants to intentionally undermine the USA who gave multiple Seig Heils was an ambiguous situation that they didn't want to rush to judgement on.
They basically destroyed all their credibility by becoming an advocate for Israel not for Jewish people.
"Examples of when such critiques cross into antisemitism include when they ostracize and vilify Zionists and Zionism"
https://www.adl.org/resources/tools-and-strategies/what-anti...
When you have a standard that exists for one country or people that doesn't exist for anyone else, isn't that the definition of bigotry in all its forms?
1. Hating someone for an attribute they can't fix or were born with is wrong. For example, skin color, sexual orientation, or being Jewish*
This is wrong because a Black person can't stop being Black, a gay man can't stop being attracted to men. In other words it's not the fault of the person.
2. Hating a person because of a belief is different. Hating all Nazis is bigotry but almost all people wouldn't consider that wrong. Hating all people who think Israel should be a country is also bigotry. The big difference is the person has control over their belief.
> standard
What standard? Who is setting this standard?
#------------ * Being Jewish is considered both an ethnicity and religion, it's complicated. Hitler didn't care if jews converted, his definition was ethnic. In this conversation I'm considering it an ethnicity.
If students did illegal activities on campus, charge the students according to the law.
_This_ is a Soviet-style government crackdown.
The power is bestowed upon them by Republican voters and they are to blame. Voting for one issue, lack of education, or desire to tune out politics isn't a reasonable excuse.
Edit
I have no issue with downvotes but offer up arguments why voters aren't responsible.
2. How am I demoralizing the opposition? I'm directing them to a more ideal target.
It has no purpose and you're not going after the source
People are responsible for their views. Especially if they don't look into other viewpoints, consider it they are being lied to, etc.
They are getting brainwashed by Twitter, Facebook, "News" websites, Televisions.
Billions are being spent every day to mould your thoughts to their desires.
How does a single individual fight that?
It's like saying "Jesus and personal responsibility" will save you from your heroin addiction.
Is the heroin addict seeking help?
And I was a distance runner for 20 years.
So you were overweight and/or ate poorly..But you wanted to be healthy?
This analogy, along with the drug addict one, doesn't work because 1. They don't believe they are doing something wrong 2. Aren't trying to fix the issue.
>nuanced
Then let's get deeper here. Offer up an argument with some nuance. My viewpoint isn't (I hope) contingent on ignoring the complexities of the situation
The usual avenues to air grievances that modern Americans are used to, like writing your representative or even peaceful mass protests, only work in a political culture where they are universally perceived as detrimental to government's legitimacy and that matters. We are past this point now, and, arguably, have been for a while.
For an example of how well such tactics work in a different culture, look at e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%932013_Russian_prot...
To put it bluntly, Trump and people who elected him don't give a fuck about "whiny libs". If you want to convince them to change course, you need to cause them actual measurable harm. Starting with economic - mass strikes etc - but be prepared that government would escalate to physical and match in kind.
Clearly the way people vote matters. But I bristle at the sentiment that protesting against it is “pointless”. Such protests are as much a signal to those who voted as it is to those who didn’t and those who hold power. It’s an ecosystem reacting in the way it should react when threatened.
Non-voters is a good point but I'm not sure the affect with Trump. Are there people who weren't aware of how much people dislike him?
It is an ecosystem, like I get why it's happening but I disagree with the target.
I don’t understand the framing of this question. People are protesting because of actions taking place now. Even many of his supporters have buyer’s remorse and didn’t expect many of the things we’ve seen from this 2nd iteration. Whether or not many people are already “aware” of the existence of dislike seems entirely irrelevant.
When the immune system reacts, it does so because of a present threat. The fact that the immune system has memory of some threats doesn’t make it less necessary to react. And I don’t think it’s fair to claim that the wrong target has been chosen. Most people are protesting against the symptom and the disease. And there’s a case to be made that the administration is both.
This is true for Elon Musk. At least in a few polls I saw a while back. Trump approval rating however is extremely high among Republicans. Of course there are always a few but this is a discussion of the masses.
I'll consider myself wrong based on the midterm election results but if Republicans keep voting Republican then any talk of disapproval or buyer's remorse is just talk
“The Buck Stops Here”
Harry S. Truman
Exactly, the decision on who to vote for
1. Quantify racist behavior 2. Show it's increasing 3. Show that Democrats are responsible or that electing Harris, who is half black, would cause it to increase
> open borders
Define an open border.
>There are voters who would vote for dems no matter what, even with there education
True and while foolish of them they were still on the better side.
>nuclear..
What real chance? Russia wants some or all of Ukraine as a territory, nukes make no sense. It would also make it harder politically for European right wing governments to tone down their help of Ukraine
Do you really think that Trump will somehow stop the Russo-Ukrainian war? Hasn't worked out well so far, right? He has some leverage on the Ukrainians, but far from decisive one, and basically no leverage at all on the Kremlin.
its seen as something odd when someone decides not to.
Down vote all you want, wont make blocking students from class because they are Jewish and hiring people based on their race or sexual preferences any less moronic.
Breath of fresh air to see that idiocy burn.
What's 'burning' is the hospitals, military research, medical research and the vast array of technical R&D that congress has requested harvard to perform.
This is just an attack on americans. Harvard is secure regardless of what destruction the presidency does to the projects congress has asked of it.
About as close to personal as it gets, other than having zero respect for racist crayon munching idiots.