The Trump Derangement-triggered outbursts on Facebook continue to fascinate me. It is a public health phenomenon worthy of research. One friend, a brilliant professional director who had been posting some of the more inflammatory (and, frankly, just stupid) attacks on Trump before the election, announced yesterday that he was leaving Facebook because he “didn’t feel safe.” And he deleted his account. Several announced in high dudgeon that if you weren’t sufficiently furious and terrified that Donald Trump had won the election, they didn’t want you as a Facebook friend or a friend at all. Other posted mind-melting, pious and irresponsible memes and quotes: one said that every citizen now has a responsibility to act exactly as the Germans didn’t act when Hitler was on the rise. It had over a hundred “likes.”
The thing above was posted, and I’m petty sure authored, by another friend, a mother, an actress, a successful playwright, and once a clear thinker and rational soul. My deranged friends display these things as virtue-signaling, secure in the belief that everyone they respect will naturally agree, and they apparently feel that accuracy, intellectual integrity or fairness are irrelevant to the public discourse process.
Let’s examine that one, which is one of the more measured lectures I’ve read since Tuesday evening, but indefensible nonetheless.
- The first line assumes that two friends and colleagues cannot openly disagree about anything significant without the “good” one rejecting the “wrong” one as unworthy of friendship. I dislike the premise of “agree to disagree”: the statement means “I have a closed mind and refuse to entertain the concept that my analysis is flawed. I assume you feel likewise.” I consider this an insult. If a subject is important, it is worth arguing about, seriously and unemotionally. Nonetheless, I do agree that characterizing friends as evil and not worthy of association because of their differing interpretations of life, values, priorities and society is how civilization crumbles. It is also arrogant and intolerant.
- The rest is clearly meant to refer to Donald Trump, given the context and timing of the post. “Everybody” knows and agrees, the writer presumes with her characterizations, so there is no need to support any of the accusations. This is the consequence of living in a bubble, as with the pundits I read over the last two weeks who said they were sure that Harris would win in a landslide because nobody they knew wasn’t voting for her.
- “Racist.” There is no evidence that Donald Trump is a racist. This is on the EA list of Big Lies. I challenge people to support this claim, and the best they can come up with is a thirty-year old complaint that Trump had discriminated in renting out apartments in one of his properties, and his “Birther” claims regarding Barack Obama. Leaders’ beliefs and biases don’t matter anyway, if their actions do not reflect them. The “resistance” uses “racist” as a reflex smear.
- “Homophobia.” Trump does not oppose gay marriage or advocate any restriction of gay rights. Objecting to trans males competing against women in sports where they have a biological advantage is not “homophobia.” It is called “common sense.”
- OK, Trump is sexist, and based on the rhetoric of the campaign, in which men were insulted and demonized, so is everybody else. I would ask the writer if she believes that not voting for an obviously incompetent Presidential candidate who happens to be a woman is “sexist.” That’s what I keep hearing on MSNBC.
- “Not basic human decency.” This is code for “He doesn’t think illegal immigrants belong in the United States.” That position has nothing to do with decency. It is a matter of law, as well as responsible national policy. Bleeding heart wokeness makes you stupid.
- “Human rights” is also a code for “How can you object to people who just want a better life?” It is repurposed into the imaginary “right” to kill a nascent human being at will. There is no such right.
- The next line is pretty funny coming from a supporter of Kamala Harris, a full-throated advocate of equity, not equality, and someone whose race and gender allowed her to be elevated over far more qualified politicians, elected officials (lawyers, business leaders, military leaders, plumbers, graffiti artists) who had the disqualifying features of being white or male. How can a doctrinaire supporter of the party of DEI, affirmative action and Black Lives Matter endorse non-discrimination without their heads exploding in protest?
- A “difference in morality” means that the writer has decided what positions and opinions are acceptable, no others will be tolerated, and the enforcing authority is everyone who agrees with her. That is a totalitarian mindset, and the current hallmark of her favorite political party.
- Ethics, in contrast, is hard. Ethics requires debate, facts, analysis and argument, as well as strict definitions of terms. The Trump Deranged have abandoned ethics for cant and propaganda. They cannot be reasoned with now, because they regard divergence from their beliefs as full justification for shunning.
The Axis has done this to the brains of perfectly good people. Now what happens?
Ethics Alarms 
I just saw a video in which the would be influencer says that those of us who supported Trump forgave him everything he did because it makes it easier for us to forgive ourselves for the bad things we do and that’s going to make people like him have a real hard time forgiving us.
Well, my message to people like that is we don’t seek or need your forgiveness. In fact, if you were the people who cheered for Jennifer Rubin and Leonard Pitts and people like that when they penned editorials in the months leading up the 2020 election talking about how you were going to punish us and throw us in jail and lock us out of public life, I’d be more concerned with whether we’ll forgive you. I have to tell you, it’s not looking too good.
People like that are everything they claim the other side is, bullies, thugs, and yeah maybe even fascists. But you see their hatred and fascism is the good kind so it’s okay.
Were it not for the fact that incoming president Trump is going to have a lot to do when he arrives in office starting with unsigning all of the executive orders that Biden signed, although probably without the mask on, commuting some of the grossly excessive sentences passed down against the January 6th protesters, rushing aid to North Carolina, and a few other things, I’d suggest he put together a multi-agency task force with the mandate to end violent activism in this nation, by whatever means necessary. No more antifa, no more John Brown gun clubs, no more any of that stuff. There can never be another summer 2020 again.
The ordinary people of this nation, the people who work pay taxes and raise families, have a right to be able to go about their daily business without fearing that they will be attacked or killed just because someone else felt so strongly about someone or something that they had to use violence to make their point. Violence and terrorism are not forms of political speech. That said, he’s got at least two years to get to this. I wouldn’t worry about whether you’ll forgive ordinary people. As I said I’d worry about whether they’re going to forgive you.
One of the deranged posted on Facebook that she would give President Trump the same respect his supporters gave President Biden.
Who, of course, gave Joe Biden the same respect Mrs. Clinton’s supporters gave President Trump the first time around.
Tit for Tat ethics. The circle continues round and round.
Anyone that posts something like that is getting confronted every time. I know me, a Trump voter. I’m not any of those things, so if they’re posting it, they’re telling on themselves and I will confront them about their racism, misandry, and their bigotry.
You’re bolder than I. These are (mostly) people I like and want to remain on good terms with: several attended Grace’s memorial service last month, which meant a lot to me. Like you, I’m good at this: if I engage with people promoting lame screeds like this, I very quickly have my teeth at their throats, because they have nothing of substance. My Trump Deranged relative, who typically calls me several times a day, hasn’t spoken to me since Tuesday, as if it’s MY fault her party nominated a terrible candidate. I can mop the floor with the Trump Deranged, historically, logically, factually. People don’t like being exposed as foolish. For me, it’s futile, and not worth the costs.
Ditto. I never engage with these poor deluded people on Facebook because it’s just too much work and so little gain. For the first time, I made two or three attempts to calm the storm. I didn’t push Trump. I didn’t tell them their candidate was terrible. I just corrected misinformation they’d believed. All I got back was how Trump said the Massive Fraud invalidated the Constitution and that his SCOTUS majority gave him absolute immunity that negated “Watergate”.
It doesn’t work. They can’t understand.
That’s understandable and the tack I’ve taken the past 4 years. On Tuesday, I snapped. If FB gives me any such thing from someone I’m friends with and know personally, they’re getting confronted. A) they’ll get over it B) growth happens when you leave your comfort zone. If I make them uncomfortable, good. C) If I lose the weakest of friends but find and enhance better friends, even better.
Well, you inspired me. Here’s a screed by one of my Trump-Deranged friends:
·
One take, probably not much more today:
So fishing for conspiracy theories out of shock disappointment and rage is understandable but it’s the other side’s playbook please.
I will not encourage anyone to start looking for back door reasons why the Harris campaign failed when the blue electorate got way too high.
We didn’t get cheated, we got surprised. We ate too many happy pills and last night was the narcan.
We went from really fearing we were going to lose the race to thinking that we were going to win a landslide to just misstep after misstep.
I watched it happen. I wasn’t listening to pundits, I wasn’t listening to polls, I was begging her to distance herself from him. I was begging her to say yes, there are things that I would have done differently and these are they.
She was not a big enough player but claimed she was and then didn’t know how to push the ejection seat from her association with what everyone wanted to get away from, 76% of America, which was we are not doing well and we haven’t been doing well but we’re under the illusion that if we wind the clock back for years that we will do better.
None of us ever could have anticipated just how hard the electorate would push back against a black female president. (especially among young white males and don’t be surprised if Joe Rogan has a place in the new cabinet)
Black female senator? Okay. Let’s do that part.
This country’s not ready. And at the rate we’re going it won’t be because we can’t find common ground.
For some reason there always needs to be division.
We are a nation built on revolution but also built on colonialism and taking things from people.
There were always two very strong sides opposing one another. More often than not, smiles and subterfuge and handshakes and beads. And so it continues…
I don’t know if anything that either side would have done or said could have changed this outcome.
But unless there’s some sort of evidence, I really bristle at the energy being put into the ginning up of conspiracy theories out of nothing but the ether.
Again, that’s not our playbook people. Peaceful transition of power.
We lost. But in several places we won. 5 out of 10 states I think passed their constitutional right to abortion, we have two female black senators. We have never even had one.
Let’s hope we win the house.
I responded,
“With all love and respect. If Democrats are always going to default to blaming racism and sexism, they will never escape this rut. Harris was a weak, unqualified candidate and ran the worst campaign I have ever seen or read about (and I have studied the American Presidency since I was in the 5th grade, wrote my thesis on it, and follow it still). I thought Dukakis was bad. I also knew Harris would lose and the reasons why, but didn’t wast my time trying to explain it to those who had convinced themselves that a campaign of avoiding issues would triumph. It’s insulting to those who felt she never gave them a compelling reason to vote for her other than “HISTORY!” and “I’m not Hitler!” and was deliberately hiding her views (“My values haven’t changed”) is not an answer. Oh—There HAS been a black female Senator, Carole Mosely Braun, She was heralded as a rising star, but she was corrupt and disgraced herself and the party. But she was historic! How quickly we forget.
Your friend is a Rush fan: The references to “bristle at the energy” is a direct quote from Rush, “The Spirit of Radio:”
“Invisible airwaves
Crackle with life
Bright antennae bristle
With the energy“
jvb
Well, Jack did say she was deranged…
😉
That’s a good reply! Not every reaction has to be adversarial. We should coach Democrats on what we want to see from their party and how we think their party could be successful. While I don’t think the party will actually change, what tends to happen is that a reasonable individual who thinks they are a card carrying party member tries to talk to others in the party about what needs to change and then their own party kicks them in the teeth. With overwhelming shock, they do some introspection and conclude… “Wait, I was just trying to be reasonable and after reflection, I said nothing wrong or anything I don’t believe.”
Then they start looking around, and that’s when things get interesting.
I have responded with (basically copying what I typed in an earlier post):
Democrats have no one to blame but themselves for Harris’ defeat. The delta between Biden’s 81 million votes in 2020 and Harris’ 71 million votes in 2024 (assuming that’s where she lands) is basically Michigan’s ENTIRE population.
Republicans showed up to vote in 2024 pretty much the same as in 2020. Ten million…TEN…MILLION…Democrats abandoned Harris/Walz to their fates, and are now mad at the GOP for what they’ve done?!?
Democrats should torch their own homes and businesses.
One historical reference. Hubert Humphrey faced a similar challenge trying to disassociate himself from Johnson, which he eventually did (even though I believe he pretty much agreed with most of Johnson’s policies).
Humphrey was a vastly more experienced politician and campaigner than Harris, and Nixon had also to overcome the Wallace headwinds that cost him several states.
But in the end, Humphrey couldn’t do it. Why ever would we think that a virtual neophyte like Kamala Harris would be able to? There were good reasons her 2020 campaign never made it out of the starting gate.
==================
Oh, one amusing yard sign I’ve seen driving around my neighborhood — “Harris 2020”. That may actually be a keepsake and ultimately find a spot in rare presidential knickknacks.
The meltdown on X is epic and with the predictable same old. On FB, I have weened out the crazies on the right and left, with the bulk being on the left.
Instagram is even crazier.
jvb
To everything, turn, turn, turn,
There is a season … for satire.
From the Babylon Bee:
U.S. — In the wake of her devastating loss to Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election, Vice President Kamala Harris urged the people dancing and celebrating in the streets to not to be too depressed about the future.
While Americans of all ages, races, and socioeconomic backgrounds continued to joyously celebrate Trump’s return to power, Harris pleaded with everyone not to give in to any feelings of sorrow and heartbreak.
“Please, don’t — please — do not despair — I’m speaking!” Harris shouted above the celebratory crowd in a speech broadcast to tens of millions of elated Americans. “We are sad today. And sad is not happy. Sad is, in fact, the opposite of happy. And happy is what we wish we were right now. Happy is good. And the opposite of good is bad, which rhymes with sad, which is what we are here in this current time.”
Members of the ecstatic crowd were unsure what the vice president had said. “What?” one partying American citizen in the crowd said. “Did that lady say something? I couldn’t hear her over all of the cheering, clapping, fireworks, and celebration going on since the race was called for Trump. She looks like she’s really sad, whoever she is. That’s a shame, it’s such a great day. I can’t think of any day in the last four years that was this great. Did she hear that Trump won?”
At publishing time, Harris asked aides to tell the happy crowd to despair more quietly to avoid making her headache worse.
Thanks for reminding me to check The Bee, Bill.
The headline right below that article was equally hilarious: “Democrats Call for Abolishing Popular Vote”.
At this point, I have to wonder if the only way the Democratic Party can get a woman across the finish line in first place would be to nominate Lia Thomas.
Wrong color.
The Democrats have virtually corner themselves into trotting out black female candidates until “history” is achieved. So far, they don’t have any competent or qualified ones around, but as Harris proved, they don’t care.
“Freind” is that a friend who is just a little off? 😉
Friend is a word, like “their” and “receive” that I have never learned to spell right the first time…
You spelled it correctly the other 7 times… 87.5% is still a B. 😉
Receive gets me sometimes. The word I usually misspell at first is recommend. I frequently try to double the C and/or not the M.
Racism – the party of slavery, the party of Jim Crow, the party that impoverished the minority inner cities and destroyed their educational system has no standing to call anyone racist. The party that insists that all minorities must vote for them or shames them and calls them stupid has no standing to call anyone racist.
Human rights – The party that human traffics people from the third world, puts them in the care of ‘staffing agencies’, and has them bused to and from factories to work for slave wages has no standing to cry ‘racism’ at anyone. The party that has imported and ‘lost’ several hundred thousand children to human trafficking has not standing to cry ‘racism’ to anyone. Was is Stephen Colbert who took Trump to task for ‘losing’ 500 or so illegal immigrant children? Apparently, the problem for Colbert was that 500 wasn’t nearly enough. He seems perfectly fine with hundreds of thousands. I makes me think someone should check his basement.
Homophobic- No president supported gay marriage before Donald Trump did. If Donald Trump is homophobic, then Obama is 10x homophobic and these people voted for him. They have no standing. Watch what these same people say to any homosexual who endorses Trump. You will see the meaning of hate then.
Sexism – Anyone who voted for Clinton or Biden have no right to call Donald Trump sexist. Please read the background on the Clinton State Trooper hotel sexual assault first.
No one who has supported affirmative action, DEI, or equity can claim rights to be treated equally. They are damned by their own statement.
I do agree with the last part. We DEFINITELY have a difference in morality.
The left thinks it is virtuous to abuse the court system and use illegal tactics to weaponize the legal system against their enemies. The left thinks it is virtuous to abuse the police to commit violent raids on political enemies for publicity and to strike fear in their enemies.
As for illegal immigration, it is astounding that the left listens to their leaders state that we need illegal immigrants to mow their yards and clean their toilets for starvation wages. The left hears that and believes it to be VIRTUOUS. They are STILL the party of slavery. One of the politicians last week self-righteously said that Republicans can’t deport illegal aliens because “Who would mow Republican lawns and clean Republican toilets?” Well, I know the answer to that. The answer is “The same person who is doing it now, ME!”. I didn’t use insider trading to make a killing on the stock market and hire slaves for domestic tasks. These are people with a slavemaster mentality.
We do have a difference in morality and I am fine with mine. It scares me that they can sleep with theirs.
Exactly this.
I’m old enough to remember when a significant number of democrats argued against the GOP for ‘Legislating Morality’.
Now they’ve saddled a bull of their own version of morality and want us to jump onto it wth them.
Oh, as an example, 55% of Californians voted to keep slavery legal in California. Only ~45% voted for the ‘End Slavery Act’ to end forced labor for prisoners. It would allow prison labor, but they couldn’t be forced to do it or disciplined for refusing to take a work assignment. Slavery is OK as long as the slave is owned by the state. That is a required condition of accepting Marxism or fascism.
If you want to engage with people going into emotional spirals, you can share this with them.
“In case it helps alleviate the stress on people’s minds:
When people feel threatened, one of the most common responses is to make other people feel threatened. We can dissolve the threats by reflecting on what we really want and how we can all work together to achieve it. When we peel away our assumptions and get back to basics, that’s how we build a more hospitable world.
I’m working to show people that we can all build that world together, without working against each other. When we unite behind a shared constructive vision of the future, we can overcome any obstacle to make it a reality.
–Alex Weissenfels, Visionary Vocabularies”
Wait, who’s this “Alex” guy?
Wish I had your optimism, EC. I’m not even in blue country and yet I find myself yearning for a Great Divorce, because I don’t have the desire or the patience to try to connect with these people. It feels like a lost cause, like we truly live in two separate realities.
They live in a world where voting for Democrats and their platform makes you a good person and voting for Republicans makes you a bad person, no matter how you actually treat the people around you. Where the government can solve problems (I think this is the true litmus test for whether you’re conservative or not–whether you believe govt can solve problems or simply make trade-offs) if we only give it enough power, where we can eliminate the foibles inherent in human nature like hatred, greed, and racism, if we only enact enough laws, and where freedom to choose for yourself takes a backseat to public safety or even public comfort.
It feels too far gone, and that separating is the best option.
It would be a catastrophe for both sides of the separation should that happen. You can expect Russia or Canada to seize Alaska and fighting along the U.S. border with Mexico. You can expect security and transportation systems to collapse and the economy will collapse possibly beyond our ability to recover. We need each other. We have to learn to get along with each other. There will always be people who dig in their heels and refuse to be part of the social compact, but most of us are reasonable, sane people who just want to be left alone.
Oh I know it isn’t feasible. Simply the logistics of there being no clear geographical separation makes it impossible.
But the percentage of people who want to be left alone vs people who want to not just tell, but force everyone to live our lives a certain way is going the wrong direction and quickly.
I’ll just leave a note here about the phrase “agree to disagree”.
To me, this is just an easy shorthand for “You’ve made your case, but I’m not convinced and I still disagree with you. I’ve made my case, but you’re not convinced either and still disagree with me. We’re now at an impasse, and any further discussion is basically pointless.”
–Dwayne
I feel similarly.
Oftentimes, disagreements stem from differences in first principles. You can rarely argue someone out of them. The best you can do is simply clarify the basis for the disagreement.
A very simple example would be the role of the individual in society. What is more important: the individual or the group?
In very many ways, The U.S. favors the individual over the group. There are many countries and cultures where the group is more important.
And, you see it in the U.S. The welfare state is a great thing, if you think that everyone needs to contribute to helping the poor in society (or, if you think it is the government’s job to handle that). Universal healthcare is the same thing. If you tend to value the group over the individual, you will more likely favor government-run healthcare; if you value the individual more, you will probably not want it.
And, there is probably not a right or wrong answer here. It is more of a balancing act. Society cannot exist without individuals and individuals need society (at least, in the sense that people are social animals). With respect to any particular issue, it is a judgment call as to how balance those things.
Sometimes, the best we can hope for is to identify the basis for the disagreement. Maybe that will help lead to a solution, but that is often not the case.
-Jut
In my experience, the excuse not to argue is not used by people thinking like Dwayne. I almost always means, “I don’t have the bullets to defend my position, and I don’t have the integrity or guts to change my mind, which is made up, so don’t confuse me with fact. I’ll win this debate by not playing, thanks.”
Or the agreement to disagree is reached by one or more of the parties realizing that the other party cannot be moved by any debate and to continue arguing is pointless.
I recall something about wrestling a pig.
Something seems inherently off-kilter with many of those who like to call themselves “progressive”, and it’s more subtle and widespread than the deranged screeds. The term “virtue signalling” may accurately describe much of the visible output, but not the underlying condition. Would “passive-aggressive atention-seeking” do?
Look at the little avatars and IDs used on TwitteX and other sites. Check out the ones with an excess of emojis… blue waves, rainbow (and other) flags, etc., etc., proclaiming their allegeances. See how often their mini-bios are filled with things like “Resist!, Fight!, #BLM, Not Going Back”, attop a notice proclaiming their pronouns. They beg for attention across multiple platforms, and studies have shown them to be actually less tolerant of those with differing opinions.
It’s all about them, and not to a healthy, normal degree.
I have seen several reports that state that over 50% of leftist women and 30% of the men have been diagnosed with mental illness. For conservatives, it is under 20% and about 10%. That is the percentage who admitted it. The true numbers are probably much higher.
Can you cite them, MR?
PWS
Here is one similar (only on depression).
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8713953/
This is a figure of the Pew Poll
https://x.com/RichardvReeves/status/1382818208084848653/photo/1
I can find lots of articles that cite the Pew study, but not a link to the study itself (stupid ‘journalists’). I guess I have seen multiple articles and they are all citing the Pew Poll.
Answers a question or two, am I right?
PWS
THIS answers some more.
PWS
My ¢75 of coconut oil says that all of the hateful spew is due to an addiction emotional distress and dietary carbohydrates. If people were to switch to an 80% fat 20% protein diet then their emotions would stabilize and the hyperbolic fear mongering would die down.
“‘Agree to disagree’ is reserved for this like ‘I don’t like coffee.'”
I am not sure much thought was put into that first statement. I think the drafter thought it meant that friends should avoid controversial subjects. But, in reality, it means exactly the opposite: You can agree and/or disagree, fight like cats and dogs about anything important and vital to existence including, but not limited to, politics, religion, whether Rush is the greatest band ever, etc. Yet, you should let bygones be bygones about trivial things such as coffee affinity or Cherrios.
jvb
I always feel that a good starting response to something like this is: “I am proud to belong to the party that values people for the content of their character and not for the color of their skin.”
That is increasingly true, I do believe. If you get no reaction? Well, that tells you something too.