this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2024
914 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19244 readers
3024 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Archived copies of the article: ghostarchive.org archive.today web.archive.org

About the only way we're going to actually have a democracy is if they consistently lose elections. That's going to mean volunteering, donating, and actually turning out to vote

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Muehe@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You are flipping definitions here. Originally you said by a descriptive definition it's sarcasm when you do not mean it (which aligns with the dictionary definition by the way, so I'm still confused why you made that point at all). He says he doesn't mean it, in his speech, verbatim. Your or my interpretation of his other actions and politics doesn't matter to the question of whether he is being sarcastic. I'm done with this conversation now, good bye.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Originally you said by a descriptive definition it’s sarcasm when you do not mean it

I've been consistent with this definition in my argument.

which aligns with the dictionary definition by the way, so I’m still confused why you made that point at all

You argument seemed to be about relying on dictionary definitions to determine what fascists are saying in their speeches. This choice lead you argument to the wrong conclusion.

He says he doesn’t mean it, in his speech, verbatim.

I've watched the CPAC speech three times now. Where does he say this?

Your or my interpretation of his other actions and politics doesn’t matter to the question of whether he is being sarcastic.

I think our interpretations could not be more important. Democracy and people's lives depend on everyone's ability to recognize fascism. A key part of that is analyzing the speaker's actions and political views to determine what he actually wants and believes.

[–] Muehe@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Ok, fuck. Against my better judgement and because I'm sufficiently drunk, here I go again... Drunk text. You were warned.

Let me start off with saying that I empathise with your point. I get what you are saying ultimately, I think. And if you see that on your Lemmy instance, I'm not the one downvoting you. I think your heart is in the right place.

But I really don't see your point about the sarcasm question. It's not a question. It's there. By definition. Why is this the hill you want to die on?

I mean the rest of his speech is just crazy over crazy. The MAGAdonians? I mean come on it's a goldmine for proving the fuck out of him being a fascist, but you are going for the one trap he lays you, where he is obviously being sarcastic. This is not going to dismantle his larger argument to anyone who might even vaguely relate to it, on the contrary. You need to do better.

But you asked, so here I go again:

He says he doesn’t mean it, in his speech, verbatim.

I’ve watched the CPAC speech three times now. Where does he say this?

He starts out with saying "most dangerous speech to democracy" in a mocking voice, then seriously "not just drain the swamp burn it to the ground". The whole thing drips of sarcasm from the start. Money quotes right here.

"Shining city on a hill, drain swamp, bla bla".

Then he lists three sources who he apparently suggests mis-cited him, Jeff Reid, Morning Joe, Mark Hamil. (?) He is mocking their accusations that he would "end democracy". "We have to end it, that's what the media told me". This couldn't be more clearly sarcastic.

Then he starts to explain his plan to end democracy, which is a list of things Republicans have accused the Democrats of doing that they consider an attack on democracy. The stolen election check-list™ I have documented in another comment. Again clearly mocking the "other side", hence sarcastic.

He ends this part of the speech with saying:

This is their “democracy” [doing air-quotes]. This is the regime we will overturn. They say democracy but they mean authoritarianism, and we know it.

Again, clearly telling people that he is being sarcastic, outright, into their faces. He does not mean "real democracy™", he means "fake democracy™".

It's there. And I don't get why you are trying to prove that it's not, when there is so much bullshit in it that you could go for instead.

Anyway, you will not find any luck in insisting somebody isn't sarcastic when they most clearly are. This will convince nobody. You need to appeal to their better senses, like "real" Christianity, the American Dream, Human rights, or whatever it takes for them.

I mean even he cleverly does this in his speech, extending an open hand to anybody and everybody, even the Swifties? Like they have a somewhat coherent narrative that people will follow, and you have to admit this guy is not bad at making propaganda for it. And IMHO you are falling for his taunt here. He challenged the public to quote him on this, because he could say it was sarcastic. Because he is.

I'm mean don't ask me how to stop the fucking fascist in the end. Some relatively influential German politician just proposed what essentially amounts to forced labour for all immigrants for several months to horrendous "wages", like <1$/h wages. In fucking Germany! The gall! So yeah, I'm not really sure what to do about it either.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Ok, fuck. Against my better judgement and because I’m sufficiently drunk, here I go again… Drunk text. You were warned.

If this is what drinking and texting produces, then more people on social media should be drinking.

This is their “democracy” [doing air-quotes]. This is the regime we will overturn. They say democracy but they mean authoritarianism, and we know it.

Again, clearly telling people that he is being sarcastic, outright, into their faces. He does not mean “real democracy™”, he means “fake democracy™”.

This is his shallow lie, where he mischaracterizes democracy and says it authoritarian. In usual Republican double speak he makes his authoritarian takeover sound like a movement for ensuring freedoms when it most assuredly will take them away. He really believes that the Democrats have done all of the things or that the things they've actually done are harmful as listed in his joke. The whole joke boils down to, "no you", with an alternate universe worth of lies.

Then he lists three sources who he apparently suggests mis-cited him, Jeff Reid, Morning Joe, Mark Hamil. (?) He is mocking their accusations that he would “end democracy”. “We have to end it, that’s what the media told me”. This couldn’t be more clearly sarcastic.

It would be sarcastic if he wanted to preserve democracy. He wants to destroy democracy. So it's not sarcastic. His goal is a christofascist dictatorship.

Anyway, you will not find any luck in insisting somebody isn’t sarcastic when they most clearly are. This will convince nobody. You need to appeal to their better senses, like “real” Christianity, the American Dream, Human rights, or whatever it takes for them.

I can only hope you're wrong. There is really nothing else to say to people at this point except that the Republicans mean it when they say want to destroy democracy. If they win in November, the Republicans are planning on dismantling our democracy by replacing nonpartisan members of the executive branch with partisan yes men, as detailed in Project 2025. They may not hold elections at all, but if they do, there won't be many people to run against them since they are undoubtedly going to jail political opponents. The amount of harm Trump can do in the next four years really isn't worth thinking about because there isn't a hard limit. He wants to use the Insurrection Act to declare martial law and deploy the military in American cities on day 1. The only way to stop these fascists is to out vote them, until someone can figure out a vaccine for self-destructive ideologies. edit: typos