A much-esteemed member of the Ethics Alarms commentariate alerted me yesterday that he would be eschewing the blog indefinitely because it was making him anxious and depressed. I’m glad he won’t be reading this post. It made me anxious and depressed.
Fresh off of yesterday’s note about the woman who asked “The Ethicist” whether she was ethically obligated to “out” a friend at work who harbored horrible conservative opinions—you know, like not believing that there is a Constitutional right to kill human fetuses—and news of another study showing that Democrats increasingly don’t want to associate with anyone not buying into their progressive, crypt-totalitarian world view (I can’t locate the recent one right now; a similar study from last December found that “5% of Republicans said they wouldn’t be friends with someone from the opposite party, compared to 37% of Democrats,” and “71% of Democrats wouldn’t go on a date with someone with opposing views, versus 31% of Republicans.”), comes more evidence that hate-mongering and Big Lies are working for the Left. They will destroy the democracy in order to save it, and promoting incurable divisiveness and distrust is just the way to do it.
The tough conservative blogger who writes The New Neo reported on a Washington Post opinion piece from last week headlined, “No, Trump voters aren’t incapable of changing their minds about him.” I confess: I saw the article and jettisoned it after this section in the third paragraph:
The rapidly forming consensus that Trump’s voters wouldn’t be moved reminded me of many moments over the last six years. Nearly as soon as Trump took over the presidency in 2017, those who dislike him characterized each revelation about his misbehavior — his lies about immigrants, the border wall and the size of his inauguration crowd; his take on white supremacists (“very fine people”); his refusal to accept the 2020 election results; that bonkers time he presented a National Weather Service map that had been adjusted with a Sharpie — as the thing that, finally, ought to turn his fans against him, but also the thing that, bafflingly and heartbreakingly, would not.
How many debunked misrepresentations can a single paragraph have and get a green light from the Post’s editors? If it involves attacking Donald Trump and his supporters, apparently there is no limit. Trump’s “lies” about “immigrants” were, of course, his accurate statements about some—too many—illegal immigrants. The border wall is looking increasingly appealing these days. He did not call white supremacists “very fine people”—this false narrative is so hoary and thoroughly rebutted that for the author, Eve Fairbanks, to resort to it qualifies as signature significance: no trustworthy writer would stoop so low. The rest of her list is similarly revelatory: exaggerating the size of his inauguration crowd and the silly and trivial National Weather Service map episode are “misbehavior,” refusing to accept the 2020 election results (as Democrats refused to accept the 2016, 2004 and 2000 election results)—this is the worst she can come up with? The fact that so many Americans continued to support Trump despite these things (and more, of course) was attributable to their appreciation of his results, which were substantially in line with what he had promised as a candidate.
The essay is almost too easy to vivisect, but The New Neo took a different tact: it checked out the comments on the article, though reading all 4000 was too much, and perhaps dangerous to one’s sanity. She writes,
The following ones are not unusual but are instead are instead very typical of what I saw, a never-ending barrage of unyielding contempt, arrogance, rage, and disgust leveled at both Trump voters and for the liberal author who was trying to talk to them. Every now and then there was a slightly less truculent comment to the effect of “well, maybe a few Trump supporters are simply misguided and we in our infinite wisdom might be able to penetrate their abysmal ignorance and help them come over from the dark side,” but those were very few and far between compared to the others….the hatred expressed was exceptionally chilling.
Yes, hate-mongering works. It remains to be seen if Democrats can succeed with a hate and fear based strategy, but it has worked before. As you know.
Here were some of Neo’s selections from the hate orgy:
- “No matter, he belongs to jail.”
- “That he is seriously supported by the GOP is only a testament to the thoroughly corrupt nature of most members, which is no news. That he is not dismissed by the general population as a lunatic psychopath is a symptom of the wave of madness of American voters gone insane.”
- “The headline caught my attention… I never knew Trump voters had a mind. I’m still not convinced.”
- “The evidence is plain. Trump brought out the most and the second most voters _ever_ for a Republican presidential candidate. His voter base _increased_ after watching his train wreck of a presidency. His candidates are winning in primaries across the nation, and the majority of Republicans now believe in his facially stupid election lies. The author of this story is Charlie Brown trying to kick the remorseful family Republican football as if she can’t remember Lucy pulling it away some hours/days after Jan 6th. The evidence is clear here. We are dealing with a modern mass hysteria formed on the basis of powerful new technology that completely democratizes communication and “truth” in a political system uniquely flawed in ways that make it possible for the minority to wield so much power via geography. Republicans are in a fear spiral, and the momentum is just too strong for most people to escape. They are going “over the cliff” with Trump, and the only reasonable strategy left for reasonable Americans is to try and outvote those lunatics until they find somewhere else to project their hatred and fear.”
- “In the case of Trump, we’re talking generations that have been “groomed” by the GOP to mistrust government, see liberals as “takers,” socialist degenerates, etc. They’ve been taught to believe lies to the point of voting against their own self-interest on a host of issues. The Big Lie and Trump as victim are just the culmination (for now) of that habituation. Somebody quits the bottle or the crack pipe down every day, but most don’t.”
- “The absence of generosity Trump embodies resonates with many. Be really cheap, mean and greedy – take the chumps. Money: I want my share – all of it.”
- “Democrats were not in the least “humiliated” when Trump won in 2016, we were ENRAGED that Putin and Comey and Roger Stone were able to throw the election to such a tremendously unfit con man. Without losing a single Russian soldier (not that that would keep him up at night) Putin crippled our democracy and installed a useful idiot as president who always gave Putin whatever foreign policy would help Putin the most.”
- “the Trumplets are stupid, scared, resentful. They are spoiled children.”
- “I think everyone is tired of the “we need to help conservatives while they plot on how to unalive us” rhetoric. The constant parade of media swearing that conservatives and Trump supporters weren’t militant racists, but were “economically anxious” has left nothing in the tank 6+ years on.”
- “Many of us are deeply saddened at how so many on the right have been brainwashed to support leaders who will lead them over the cliff, and are desperately hoping this is just a temporary madness for their sake and for ours. But whether it’s temporary or not, it’s a huge danger to our democracy and we need to take some kind of action.”
- “I suspect the author wants to believe Trump’s followers can still be persuaded because the other options are so hard to accept: 1) we lose to them and our country becomes a autocratic theocracy; 2) we crush them like Sherman on his march to through Georgia; 3) we split up the country and go our separate ways. Frankly, I think the third option is the best one. Not good, but better than the others.”
- “We are in the early stages of an outright civil war, and we need to pull our collective heads out of the sand, face that fact and decide what to do about it. Hoping and waiting for a few more people to leave the cult isn’t really a viable option at this point. We’ve been doing a version of this since this country was first formed, and while some great progress has been made, those opposed to the Enlightenment values this country was founded on have only become more entrenched in their opposition.”
- “Even if they were, finally, to admit that Donald Trump is flawed, too flawed for their continued support, his followers would not change their basic ideology. They would not, could not become “more like us.” Their loyalty would simply shift to another right-wing politician who shares (or pretends to share) their fears, biases, and hatreds and their desire to remake the US in their image: white, Christian, and conservative. Pols such as Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Texas Governor Greg Abbott know this, which is why they are going over the top trying to out-Trump one another in their statements and policies. Removing Trump himself from the equation, while it might prevent a reprise of his craziest and most criminal behaviors while in office and afterward, would not secure our democracy or the rights of women and racial and sexual minorities, nor would it end the constant barrage of false claims about immigrants, the Black Lives Matter movement, discrimination against white people, or rampant election fraud. The men vying for the Republican presidential nomination have added to those grievances the teaching in public schools of a race-inclusive rendition of US history (which they falsely label “Critical Race Theory”); school and public libraries’ inclusion of books about racism and LGBTQ-related subjects; and the idea of the “great replacement” — that liberals encourage immigration for the purpose of replacing the white, Christian majority in the US with people of other races and faiths who will change the character of our nation and vote for Democratic candidates. If Trump’s supporters should abandon their idol and instead back one of his imitators, the Trumpified Republican Party will present no less danger to the gains that have taken decades to achieve for women, members of BIPOC communities, and sexual minorities or to the survival of our democracy.”
A final note: Charlie Crist, the former Florida governor who will be opposing Ron DeSantis in November, announced, “Those who support DeSantis should stay with him and vote for him and I don’t want your vote. If you have that hate in your heart, keep it there.”
Right. They have hate in their hearts.
15 thoughts on “What Do You Call Those Who Deliberately Encourage Hate And Division?”
“refusing to accept the 2022 election results”
He’ll refuse to accept this year’s results too, I bet. (Fixed.)
I assume you mean the 2004 election results, not 2008?
You’re not wrong on 2022, if the democrats are totally blown out in November, they’ll come up with something explaining why they’re not legitimate.
I have only one word for those talking about civil war. Perge!
(as Democrats refused to accept the 2016, 2008 and 2000 election results)
Why wouldn’t they accept 2008? It was their best year in recent history.
I suspect that solid majority of Trump supporters reject the 2020 election results, not because of the quantity and quality of evidence, but because of spite in reaction to the Russians®™ Stole the 2106 election Propaganda Campaign, which utilized Justice Department resources to give it an illusion of credibility.
Why, oh why, don’t these mouth breathing degenerates who must be crushed like Sherman’s March to the Sea continue to oppose our agenda? Can’t these evil ignoramuses see we have their best interests at heart?
What Do You Call Those Who Deliberately Encourage Hate And Division?
I guess it depends on who gets to define the terms “Hate” and “Division,” n’est ce pas?
Honestly, the Leftist definition of hate is basically anything that does not toe the party line. I certainly don’t want to go down that road…
Give credit where credit is due. Proglibots have perfected the art of name calling.
Oh and btw; why is that whenever a fascist dem trashes Trump’s presidency, they rarely if ever provide specifics while even a two year old can do that with dementia jo.
Reading this I was reminded of the Rogers & Hammerstein musical “South Pacific” and the song “You have got to be taught”. The opening lines are:
“You’ve got to be taught, to hate and fear
You’ve got to be taught from year to year
It’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear
You’ve got to be carefully taught”
While originally it speaks about racial discrimination, it seems that the Left are using the tactics to advance political discrimination.
See the story I just posted on this exact topic.
Jack wrote, “A much-esteemed member of the Ethics Alarms commentariate alerted me yesterday that he would be eschewing the blog indefinitely because it was making him anxious and depressed.”
Truly a bummer.
Choices, choices, choices.
What I don’t get is the stated reason why. How could this blog that focuses on discussing the world around us from an ethics point of view possibly make anyone “anxious and depressed”? Is the commenter correlating this blog as being the cause when the actual cause what’s happening in much of the world around him?
Correlation ≠ Causation and using self imposed blinders won’t likely stop the anxiety and depression.
You call them enemies of the people.
“You call them enemies of the people.”
Bravo Indigo November Golf