I woke up in the middle of the night to check something and found this rant on my Facebook feed:
So, just so we’re clear- I get it, you don’t like Kamala or Tim. Not your first choice, etc., etc.So, I ask you this as you hem and haw: cut into the only chance this country has to rid itself once and for all of an openly racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, incompetent tyrant who has given a voice to the worst parts of our culture; to keep this rapist and felon from returning to power, this time with people who are focused on carrying out his Agenda – Whatever might happen if we’re to have a Harris/Walz presidency, how in any possible way is that worse than what four more years of this man and what he represents can bring? HOW?To vote otherwise (Republican or Independent), to criticize to the point of damage, to abstain, is nothing more than serving one’s ego.By 2028 the world will gladly continue on after slicing up what remains of the United States of America, and while I understand every single one of your arguments regarding the history of this country – and agree with a good many of them – for all the reasons you want to see a future that has better things than the past, put down all your grievances, or at the very least anything that will prevent this duo from taking the reins and JUST GET THEM THERE.We can rightly start to work when we are sure there’s something left to work with, because if you don’t know that the alternative will leave us with less than nothing (and not for long at that), you’re complicit in a way that can not and will not be forgiven by history, your families and very likely, because chances are you are someone with a decent heart who gives a shit, yourself.Blue. That’s it. That’s all. Right now. Do it.
The writer is a much closer friend and of longer duration than the one I discussed in yesterday’s Ethics Quiz. He’s also in professional theater, but, believe it or not, is a lawyer—you know, the profession that supposedly reveres precision analysis. Another interesting wrinkle: he’s Jewish, and promoting a Presidential candidate who wants to impose a “permanent” cease-fire in Gaza. You may remember, and I’m certain he does, how the last supposedly permanent cease fire in Gaza ended, on October 7, 2023.
What is so fascinating about this friend’s meltdown is that it is in substance essentially the same as Friend #1’s, just hysterical and with more imaginary characterizations of Trump. When has Trump ever been “homophobic”? That smear is an example of how the intersectionality delusion works: if you don’t support the whole progressive team, you must be prejudiced against every part of it. As in the example yesterday, the “speaker” here is (or was) smarter than his words and logic suggest, yet here we are.
The “xenophobic” bit, though it pains me to say it, is the mark of a progressive hack. It’s pretty much unforgivable. Opposing out-of-control…literally…illegal immigration has nothing to do with xenophobia: it has to do with enforcing the law. One would think that a lawyer would comprehend that, yet in this infuriating case, one would be wrong.
Similarly hacky is the sobriquet “tyrant,” a Big Lie “resistance” talking point. As President, Trump was well within the normal range of Presidential power, and not even on the extreme end. President Biden, in contrast, has repeatedly attempted to abuse his power and position, including, lest we forget, trying to continue in his high office after he was no mentally longer able to do the job (if he ever was). Welcome back, King George III!
The question “how could it be worse?” is also a depressing sign of Trump Derangement IQ drain. How? The candidate my friend is promoting just advocated price controls, a communism-redolent device that is universally regarded as bats.
Unlike in the case of Friend #1, who is, I believe, just naive, ill-informed, and in the throes of pernicious groupthink, I did respond, mildly, to this friend’s screed. He is politically engaged, and was probably like this even before he immersed himself in the warm woke bath known as the theater. I merely wrote that eventually we would all look back on his diatribe one day and laugh, as we laughed at “Reefer Madness.” Trump Derangement is a lot like that movie, but sufferers can’t see that yet.
I also believe that using social media to bombard one’s friends with such intrusive political assaults is obnoxious and a breach of trust. I don’t visit Facebook to be ordered how to vote and lectured, especially by people who don’t know as much about the topic they are lecturing me on as I do. If you want to express an opinion, fine, but don’t imply that any contrary opinion is unconscionable unless there is a very strong case to be made that it is unconscionable.
Ethics Alarms 
the unfollow button is your friend. Seriously, Jack, don’t you have better things to do than read this garbage? I hate the idea of unfollowing or, if necessary, unfriending, but if someone is going to act like this, you are well within your rights to tell them either to get lost permanently or to get lost until after the election. I unfollowed someone in 2016 because the person was posting four and five attacks on Trump before breakfast, and then you still have the rest of the day. Unfortunately, I forgot to refollow, and this person is now dead and I didn’t even know about it. I really don’t give a damn though, that’s the price you pay when you abuse social media to abuse those who are ostensibly your friends. It is abuse, make no mistake of that. I’m not quite where my dad is, who says that social media should only be used for things in your life like family stuff, vacations, and other stuff you might discuss at a family gathering, however I do believe that politics 24/7 and this kind of bullying is inappropriate and should not be engaged in.
Unfortunately, Donald Trump has become one of about five or six topics that cause people’s brains to liquefy and trickle out their ears. It’s impossible to have a rational discussion about him with many people. Homosexuality used to be one such topic. The mere mention of it would send a lot of people into paroxysms of frothing hatred and throwing insults and slurs. Ireland is another, there are still far too many people out there who will actually get violent if you dare to even suggest that there is more to the question than simply Irish=good, English=bad. I almost got in a fist fight with a colleague over that issue, and I told him that if I ever see him again I’ll kill him because he disrespected me. Then again, this jerk disrespected everybody and I think I’d be doing the world a favor if I killed him.
the post your friend made is nothing more than a bowel movement in digital form. And I’m talking a big thick fat wet greasy one. There is not one bit of valuable substance to it. It’s nothing but name calling, big lies, and an order to you to vote like he wants you to, right now, or risk being on the wrong side of History. Yet you responded in a very mild manner. I don’t know your friend, and maybe responding like that we’ll just make him madder, because he knows he can’t get to you, but, on the other hand, if your friend knows you, he should also know that this kind of garbage will neither influence you nor affect you. I think you’ve been well within your rights to tell him exactly why this post was garbage, although keeping it brief, and warning him that another post like this will result in him being kicked off your page on a permanent basis. That’s the problem with people who misbehave, the rest of us don’t visit enough consequences on them. Because of that they think they can get away with this kind of behavior. Enough people start breaking friendships over this kind of behavior and maybe some people will decide it’s not worth it to rant. Just like 4 years ago, the police should have been throwing people in jail and breaking kneecaps to stop people from marching and prosecutors and judges should have been locking them up for a good long time. Then and only then would the idiots think maybe acting like this isn’t such a good idea.
I’ve finally had to resort to unfollowing certain Facebook friends for a bit when they cannot dial it down on the political posts.
Mrs. OB is on Facebook, unlike myself. Jack’s last paragraph is her point with the lefty harpies. She doesn’t seem to have much success reminding them of Jack’s point.
“The candidate my friend is promoting just advocated price controls, a communism-redolent device that is universally regarded as bats.”
Kamala Harris Threatened To Snatch Patents from Businesses Who Don’t Comply with Government Price Controls (shorenewsnetwork.com)
She will tell the ignorant what they want to hear and the use the power of her office to quash dissent from those who know better.
The note doesn’t read like lawyer-screed. It feels like a “talking points” script that was sent to your lawyer friend with the instruction to “pass it around to anyone you know (or think) to be voting for President Trump”. It was probably penned by someone in the Harris/Walz campaign…maybe by AOC herself. I note distinct similarities in tone to what the Harris/Walz campaign published after President Trump talked with Elon Musk.
That’s my guess…
I don’t know what you do with it. If the lawyer penned it (then he isn’t very eloquent), you’re not likely to make any headway via discussion. If the lawyer just passed on what was received, you’re not likely to make any headway via discussion.
I might suggest doing what I do every time I listen to Jessica Tarlov on “The Five”: shake my head in sorrow, chuckle to myself, and look for someone actually open to discussing a political thing without shrieking.
Excellent guess, Joel. Who in their right mind has time to compose something like that? It must have been copied and pasted. Do NOT engage!
I wonder why you did not fisk this rant.
You do? It’s essentially the same as the other one, just more furious. One thing I hate about Trump Derangement and The Great Stupid is that it forces me to be repetitious.
Jack, you know my political side, and I’m ever grateful that even so you continue to be my friend. I operate on FB thus: My page is MY page, a place where I can express my feelings and opinions. Your page — same thing. I don’t use FB to participate in debates or arguments. In 2016, a dear friend of opposite political leanings began to write screeds on my page in response to my posts. I kindly explained my FB policy and asked her to keep it to herself. She just couldn’t, so I unfriended her. It made me sad but kept my blood pressure in check. She recently sent me a friend request, and I figured it would be ok, and it has been. But I’ve recently also re-connected with a bunch of people from my high school graduating class, a lot of whom were not really friends back then, but whatever. Suddenly, one of them has been snarky with the political stuff. I felt no remorse hitting the unfriend link. Buh-bye, Barbara. You were always kind of a snob anyway.
It’s amazing how shitty people are willing to be online, even in emails. Breathtaking.
Yeah, I think it’s a close call, and one of social media philosophy. I’ve come to believe that what one puts on Facebook is considered to be communication with everybody, and that one shouldn’t go out of one’s way to trigger or annoy people who want to keep in contact with you. I also used to believe that when someone had a purely political screed like that, and knew it would appear in my feed, that I was within my rights to respond, especially if was factually wrong or insulted my intelligence. One friend really objected to me doing that with his extreme screeds, and I told him that if he posted something that came up on my feed, he couldn’t object when I responded to it in kind. I still feel that way, BUT I don’t bother with doing that very often any more. I think Facebook should be used to let people know how and what you are doing—true, if you are losing your mind, your friends should be able to know that too, but telling your friends what they HAVE to do crosses a big, thick red line.
Either I or others apparently do not know what the term misogyny is. Its clinical definition is “hatred of women”. I don’t think this description fits Trump. Feminists have extended this to simply mean being critical of actions by women. That seems to be more misogynistic by suggesting that women cannot handle criticism without harming their frail nature.
Our host, as others have claimed that Trump is a misogynist. Ok, that is an opinion but if we use his behavior with respect to choosing attractive women over less attractive women then even our host is guilty of that behavior when he condemned the Alabama judges for choosing a fat women for Miss Alabama or his commentary on heavy set women gracing the cover of SI.
If that is what defines a misogynist then the same must be true of misandrists who only elevate the wealthy tall handsome or powerful men to be potential mates. Or, when the woman has greater wealth and power they too put attractive males and females in positions of power.
Why is it that you don’t hear about Beyonce’, Salma Hayek, or any of the other Hollywood beauties dating a 5 foot 8, 190 pound gaffer on the set? What is meant by being “out of her league” if it does not have to do with qualities that women finds attractive in a mate? Would any of these women accept a role if Danny Devito was to be cast as her leading man? It would be an interesting experiment. Despite Trump’s rather vulgar comment on the famous Billy Bush tape, there is some truth in the statement. Some women will sacrifice chastity for the potential of a big payday. Not all, but a significant enough number to make a generalization.
If we are honest being, we all have our own definitions of beauty and there are scientific studies that reflect innate preferences for facial symmetry and other characteristics. Western culture sees slender bodies as more attractive than fat ones. Perhaps that is because we have been inculcated with the idea that fat people are lazy and unhealthy. If this were not the case people like the telegenic Gavin Newsome would be seen as the overbearing narcissist that he is.
I suppose I am just tired of words being used to describe people that take a behavioral element that we are all typically guilty of at one time or another to demonize another.
What’s up with Donald Trump and ‘the women’? Not what you might think. (yahoo.com)
What women who worked for Donald Trump have to say about him – CBS News
The links above provide an interesting comparison by actual females who worked for Trump. For those women who complained that only the pretty women got promoted they never provided any evidence to suggest that they were more qualified.
Your friend provided no evidence to support his claims so he is unqualified to have any effect on anyone’s opinions. Your friend should be careful about calling Trump a rapist. I believe the entire context of the screed indicates malice toward Trump.
“I believe the entire context of the screed indicates malice toward Trump.”
Ya think?
I’m pretty sure Trump is a misogynist. His comments about women in various controversies—like his menstruation references with Megyn Kelly, are tells. His first wife’s claims of sexual abuse (or marital rape). I don’t think men who have any respect for women are likely to make the remarks he did on that bootleg Access Hollywood tape. His attitudes are typical of working class alpha male attitudes towards women in the Mad Men era.
Ironically, I noticed it a lot in boys of Eisenhower/Kennedy era parents. Many of the guys now in their mid-fifties are creepily old school in their behaviors. They smoke cigars and strut around. The behavior was toned down in the baby boom era, but I think it cropped right back up soon thereafter.
Even more ironically, I think the women in the mid-50s cohort are also kind of throwbacks. They seem to lean toward getting divorced (with alimony and child support) and get together and bitch about men.
My issue is that the term misogyny seems to be a catch all term to indict boorish men who treat women in the same manner as they do other men. We do not regularly call out women as misandrists when they make lewd or inappropriate comments about males. Why is that? Is it because there is a belief that men secretly enjoy such attention? Or is it that men are supposed to take to slap of a woman to show their inherent confidence and strength? Maybe we have been brainwashed to believe women are weaker and must have male protection so we are obligated not to respond to attacks by women.
I have heard the same comment about Megan Kelly used to describe male behavior as well and women themselves allude to or explicitly talk about PMS’ing and to watch out. What concerns me is that we are quick to call obnoxious male statements as misogynistic and disrespectful but unwilling to call out statements directed at males as misandristic or disrespectful. That is paternalistic such that women need male protection from mere words.
Television is replete with themes of male inadequacy. I put Trump’s statements on the same plane as women saying men’s brains are located in another part of their anatomy. Women have adopted the habit of telling men to grow a pair when men lodge a complaint because men are supposed to just suck up the abused piled upon them. Never have I heard them being labeled as misandrists for their comments. Why not?
I believe it is appropriate to call out obnoxious statements but it must be done regardless of the sex of the target. Otherwise, we will be reinforcing a stereotype. Just an opinion on my part.
I think your point is unquestionably valid, but Trump may be the worst possible example. From his books to his off-hand comments to his rhetoric, the guy oozes sexism to my eye and ear. If that’s a misconception, I can hardly blame others who share it. (Clinton and JFK also get my misogynist rating.) I must confess that any wealthy and powerful man with an obvious trophy wife—and Melania may be the champion trophy wife of all time—sets off my misogyny alarms. This bias goes back to a Harvard classmate who said that his Wellesley fiance “looked good on his arm.”
Of all your post, this is the important line:
Your friend provided no evidence to support his claims so he is unqualified to have any effect on anyone’s opinions.
Over the years, I’ve watched social media move from Usenet and livejournal, which promote detailed thoughts and responses, to shorter and shorter formats. In the same timespan public discourse has polarized and broken down. I think there’s a string case these things are related.
The micro-post formats of Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok discourage nuance, presenting evidence, and equivocation. They encourage straw-manning, parroted talking points, and hyperbole. And that’s just the format of writing, not even getting into likes, algorithms, and echo chambers — just sitting down to post something you’re thinking of the shortest, least detailed way you can get a thought across.
Facebook (and Twitter and TikTok) screeds are making the world worse, not even due to one party or the other (though one party has taken to them like a fish to water). They are actively making smart people dumber by encouraging them to think in sound bites.
To that end, maybe we ought to be responding to these, not with rebuttals in the same format, but with a link to WordPress or Substack and a note that says “I’m curious, could you please outline your full argument in a complete blog post?”
I agree Emily which is why I provided 2 links to 2 different editorial outlets. I am under no illusion that Trump has a behavior of name calling which I find unappealing at best. He is ecumenical in his name calling such that he is an equal opportunity offender and his disrespect for others is not predicated on gender.
“the only chance this country has to rid itself once and for all of an openly racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, incompetent tyrant who has given a voice to the worst parts of our culture.”
WRONG! There is another way: elect Trump, let him serve his second term and you may never hear from him again; he will probably go back to running his family business. If you don’t elect him, he will continue showing up on the talk show circuit and may make a fourth run for President.
-Jut
Actually, that’s no longer a problem because he has already withdrawn from the presidential race. Whether his VP has those defects is yet to be determined.
The major tell I noticed was the “openly racist” big lie, that is completely unsupportable. I just recently happened to reread on an old Slate Star Codex post on that exact phrase, from 2016. https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/
He had a followup post in 2021 that referenced it and commented on things that happened during the presidency. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mantic-monday-grading-my-trump-predictions
I found the following essay helpful, from the always thoughtful blogger Arnold Kling.
https://arnoldkling.substack.com/p/links-to-consider-84-28f
Especially relevant is the link to an essay from Dan Williams.
Additionally, this essay about those who are highly sensitive to status and what the winning side will be.
https://arnoldkling.substack.com/p/status-driven-syndrome
tl, dr: Most people aren’t interested in the truth, therefore asserting that what they say is factually false is ineffective. Many people cannot be persuaded by showing them what is true.
cheers!
charles w abbott
rochester NY
Peter Boghossian has good examples of what sometimes persuades people to change their minds. One of his approaches is to ask people,
“Can you suggest some of the things that people believe who disagree with you?”
and then later…
“What would it take to to change your mind?”
I can’t find an appropriate link, so you’re on your own.
It’s probably a bad sign for academia that he has left academia and made his career elsewhere.
Thanks for reading!
charles w abbott
Alright, given that Trump’s own actions don’t justify his apocalyptic reputation among progressives, let’s look at the situation from another angle. What hasn’t he done? And what about the people around him?
Some progressives have experienced actual prejudice from some groups that have expressed complete trust in Trump. Understandably, they fear that Trump will support those groups’ prejudices in some way, or else those groups wouldn’t feel so fervent about him.
Being a politician, Trump predictably leaves it ambiguous whether he really will support prejudice so that different people can project their opinions onto him and he can get maximum support. He doesn’t proactively reassure people on the Left that he will look out for their interests lest he alienate people on the Right, so the Leftist institutions can project antagonistic opinions onto him for their own benefit.
There are several assumptions in play here that need to be addressed:
Assumption 1: Prejudiced people support Trump because they think he’ll support their prejudices, as opposed to other reasons like economic policy.
Assumption 2: Dissenting opinions that object to progressive policies don’t have any merit; they’re based purely in prejudice.
Assumption 3: If we let prejudice get a foothold through seemingly reasonable or innocuous policies, it will be very difficult to stop people from implementing extremely harmful policies, or going out and committing violence with impunity.
I’d ask your friend to elaborate on the above assumptions. Either we’ll learn more about where those ideas come from, or he’ll realize the assumptions don’t necessarily hold up or can be addressed even if Trump is elected.