Remember, Remember (the January 6th edition)

[DaggerDigwillow]

At that time, the democratic party was the conservative party. The biggest mistake the Left made then was not liquidating the main social base of conservatism at the time, the southern planters.

The opposition to the confederacy literally called themselves "the conservatives" I'd recommend reading some Eric Foner Civil War and Reconstruction because you clearly don't know what you are talking about here.

Yeah. The support of 40, 45% of the population is an effective shield.

Nixon’s support tanked before his political downfall. You’d need to see something similar before it’d be expected that Trump would have actual issues.

Harder to push propaganda when you can't control the narrative.

 

[Plains-Cow]

At that time, the democratic party was the conservative party. The biggest mistake the Left made then was not liquidating the main social base of conservatism at the time, the southern planters.

A-la Haiti style?

 

[Lexicus]

The opposition to the confederacy literally called themselves "the conservatives" I'd recommend reading some Eric Foner Civil War and Reconstruction because you clearly don't know what you are talking about here.

Lmao, have you even read a word of that book? Foner clearly situates the radical wing of the Republicans and the abolitionists within the American radical tradition (ie, the opposite of conservatism). It's more ironic because you don't need to appeal to the authority of historians at all, passing familiarity with the primary sources is enough to see that American conservatism has changed but little since its genesis in proslavery ideology.

Edit: to get back more on topic: Of course, the 6th was on one level farcical, but its precedents are the conservative coups that overthrew elected radical governments in Southern states after the federal army was withdrawn.

A-la Haiti style?

Something not far from that may have been necessary. But given how different the social conditions of 1800 Saint-Domingue and 1860s US are, I'm not sure the comparison is all that useful.

 

[DaggerDigwillow]

Lmao, have you even read a word of that book? Foner clearly situates the radical wing of the Republicans and the abolitionists within the American radical tradition (ie, the opposite of conservatism). It's more ironic because you don't need to appeal to the authority of historians at all, passing familiarity with the primary sources is enough to see that American conservatism has changed but little since its genesis in proslavery ideology.

Edit: to get back more on topic: Of course, the 6th was on one level farcical, but its precedents are the conservative coups that overthrew elected radical governments in Southern states after the federal army was withdrawn.

Foner posits Republicans as maintaining the preservation of the union. Hence "conserving" the established order of the union. While republicans opposed slavery in the south Slavery was largely already abolished or prohibited in the north so again they were conserving the preservation of the status quo in their home states while some in the party advocated for its adaptation to abolish slavery in the south.

If you are going to argue nuance you might want to actually try being correct about the broader argument before you get the details wrong. That isn't an appeal to authority it is pointing you to history on which Foner is an authority. You might also want to look up what an appeal to authority fallacy is so you can understand for yourself what is and isn't a legitimate appeal to authority.

 

[Lexicus]

Foner posits Republicans as maintaining the preservation of the union. Hence "conserving" the established order of the union. While republicans opposed slavery in the south Slavery was largely already abolished or prohibited in the north so again they were conserving the preservation of the status quo in their home states while some in the party advocated for its adaptation to abolish slavery in the south.

If you are going to argue nuance you might want to actually try being correct about the broader argument before you get the details wrong. That isn't an appeal to authority it is pointing you to history on which Foner is an authority. You might also want to look up what an appeal to authority fallacy is so you can understand for yourself what is and isn't a legitimate appeal to authority.

Your argument is based on no history at all, just semantics. And I never mentioned fallacy, not all appeals to authority are fallacious.

 

[DaggerDigwillow]

Your argument is based on no history at all, just semantics. And I never mentioned fallacy, not all appeals to authority are fallacious.

I've pointed you to relevant historical examples and experts on those eras. You were taking issue with referencing such authorities on the issue. Obviously you need more than a "passing familiarity" with the topic which I've explained and corrected you on requires an understanding of nuance. Hence my citing a historical work on which Foner is an expert.

Being as definitions are at the core of the disagreement regarding the history and consistency of the republican party I'd say semantics matter a lot in this discussion. This is why I laid out my definition of conservative according to the Oxford and Merriam-Webster definitions which are also in alignment with both the Republican Political Platform of the Civil War and the GOP of today.

 

[Lexicus]

You pretty clearly have no familiarity with the topic, so there's no need to continue this discussion.

 

[DaggerDigwillow]

You pretty clearly have no familiarity with the topic, so there's no need to continue this discussion.

Sounds like cope from somebody who can't present an argument to defend their views but you are free to leave at any time. Thanks for showing up please collect your participation trophy on your way out. ✌

Moderator Action: This is not appropriate behaviour for CFC. Be better next time. ~ Arakhor

 

[Gorbles]

"you don't know what you're talking about" sounds like a cogent enough argument to me. But enjoy your game of playing at fallacies regardless, don't let me interrupt it.

 

[DaggerDigwillow]

"you don't know what you're talking about" sounds like a cogent enough argument to me. But enjoy your game of playing at fallacies regardless, don't let me interrupt it.

I don't doubt expressing ill-informed opinions while being unable to back up claims when challenged passes as a cogent argument for some but I'd be embarrassed to admit such a thing. If you'd like to attempt to present such an argument be my guest but if your only reason to interrupt is to whine then I'll continue waiting for someone who can but I'm not going to hold my breath in expectation.

 

[El_Machinae]

Actually only a pretty small percentage is fully "deplorable." But 40% of the nation won't hold those deplorables in check, won't denounce them, won't repudiate them. So they're deplorable-enablers. And therefore the effect is as though 40% of the nation is fully deplorable.

It was quite the memetic coup (even if Clinton made a mistake with her word-smithing). No one called 40% 'deplorables', except themselves. In a great feat of branding pride, they took a slur intended for a small and well, deplorable, cohort and then universally wore it as a badge of honor. Not quite I'm Spartacus. Not really Je suis Charlie, but a successful repainting of a slur.

 

[DaggerDigwillow]

It was quite the memetic coup (even if Clinton made a mistake with her word-smithing). No one called 40% 'deplorables', except themselves. In a great feat of branding pride, they took a slur intended for a small and well, deplorable, cohort and then universally wore it as a badge of honor. Not quite I'm Spartacus. Not really Je suis Charlie, but a successful repainting of a slur.

"Basket of deplorables" is a phrase from a 2016 presidential election campaign speech delivered by Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton on September 9, 2016, at a campaign fundraising event, which she used to describe half of the supporters of her opponent, Republican nominee Donald Trump, saying "They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic".[1] The next day, she expressed regret for "saying half", while insisting that Trump had deplorably amplified "hateful views and voices".

Basket of deplorables - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[El_Machinae]

1) not all people who ended up voting for Trump (by that stage) are people I'd call 'Trump supports' - but I'll grant that can come across as weaseling, even if it's true. It's half of a smaller number.
2) but yes, saying 'half' would be going too far when it comes to polite rhetoric.
3) it's still not 40% of people, which was kinda the original claim.

 

[DaggerDigwillow]

1) not all people who ended up voting for Trump (by that stage) are people I'd call 'Trump supports' - but I'll grant that can come across as weaseling, even if it's true. It's half of a smaller number.
2) but yes, saying 'half' would be going too far when it comes to polite rhetoric.
3) it's still not 40% of people, which was kinda the original claim.

If they voted in support of trump I'd call them Trump supporters regardless of the reason they supported Trump.
It was certainly beyond the pale even for democrat rhetoric which isn't exactly a high bar and I think that is perhaps why she backtracked so quickly.
Where exactly did you come up with for your claim 40% did someone allege this exact number or were you just pulling out of the air?

Edit: I'm guessing the 40% was in response to rg339.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm loathe to get into a debate about what rhetoric was 'beyond the pale' during those campaigns. It was a low point in American history.

The "trail of the 40%" can be followed by clicking the little up arrow in Gori's post that I quoted.

But yeah, 'half' was too aggressive. Wasn't good wordsmithing. The real success was turning it into a badge of honor.

 

[Lexicus]

But yeah, 'half' was too aggressive.

If Hillary had the courage of her convictions and leaned into the deplorables thing she'd have won. Or maybe it's more accurate to say the reason she walked it back is the same reason she lost.

Before you recoil in horror, consider what Trump has taught us: you double down on triggering the other side, you don't apologize or walk it back.

 

[El_Machinae]

I definitely agree that there's a way to define 'Trump Supporter' such that 'half of them are deplorable' is a reasonable statement from a Centrist standpoint.

I don't think Clinton could have beaten Wikileaks. It was a very powerful drip of bad news. But this is alternative history. I'm not sure if anyone can out-Trump Trump.

 

[Lexicus]

If Clinton had freakin visited Michigan she'd probably have won. I really do think this idea that Clinton is blameless in her own defeat is utterly ridiculous and a path to further Democratic defeats, or at best Pyhrric victories like the one in 2020.

 

[El_Machinae]

Hmmmn, well I don't want to give the impression I thought she was blameless.

 

[Rg339]

I'm not sure if anyone can out-Trump Trump

Is it about out Trumping Trump?

In my estimation, right and left are pretty far apart in preferred values. Insult the other team, you motivate “us” by attacking “them”. You don’t lose much ininsulting the other side. They’re not voting for you anyway, gap’s too wide.

You don’t have to out-Trump Trump to gain from demonization of the other team.

edit: I guess I see less and less point in trying to capture the center in a society in which both sides are absolutely repulsed by the morality of the other. There’s probably more gain in simply fighting the culture war for politicians, at this point.