The double standard

[superrific]

And it's precisely in this way that he can complement the Neo-Nazis as "fine people" in one breath and unequivocally condemn neo-Nazis in the very next breath. He doesn't have to square the circle because he DGAF about squaring the circle.

Trumps main superpower is the fact that we (persistently, insanely) try to filter his words in the "truth as meaningfully differentiable from falsehood" context that the rest of us all collectively share. He does not.

You have to understand your trying to play a game by rules he's not bound to. And you will lose every time till you adapt to the rules he's playing by (succinctly, he'll say whatever the **** he thinks will advantage him regardless of truth value).

Yes. That's indeed the MAGA superpower in general.

I once wrote a post about how MAGA and liberals view hypocrisy differently. Liberals view hypocrisy as a sign of insincerity and weakness. It comes from the tradition of speaking truth to power. It comes from the old, old Hegelian -> Marxist tradition of viewing history as the resolution of contradictions (and then the emergence of the next). It can also be a sign of ignorance or lack of thoughtfulness.

But to MAGA, hypocrisy is a virtue. It's a sign of strength. This comes from a different tradition -- the tradition of the nobility who could break the law with impunity even as they would be harsh to others because, after all, they were the nobility. It comes from the tradition of slaveowners who would speak about black people and white people being totally incompatible, and how any extramarital sex was a sin, and so on . . . and then rape their slaves. I'm not saying that all MAGAs necessarily share those particular values, but I think they view hypocrisy that way. As a prerogative, not a weakness.

It reminds me of the MAGAs who brag that Trump could shoot someone and lose no support. My reaction, of course, is that they are shitting on themselves. They are saying, "we are sheep who will follow an immoral man blindly even if he does the most immoral things." But what they think they are saying is, "we are on the side of the winners, and that's why we like Trump, because he's a winner who could do anything and still win."

 

[dukeman92]

Yes, I think, outside of the neo-Nazis, there were good/really fine people on both sides.

But, again, the issue is Trump's words/beliefs being intentionally misrepresent to portray him as a racist. There are 1,000 legit reasons the guy is a POS. No need to lie.

He's also given us plenty of reasons to assume he's a racist. He's also burned up any "benefit of the doubt" currency he had. Defending him on this topic is sus, as the kids would say.

 

[lawtig02]

Yes. That's indeed the MAGA superpower in general.

I once wrote a post about how MAGA and liberals view hypocrisy differently. Liberals view hypocrisy as a sign of insincerity and weakness. It comes from the tradition of speaking truth to power. It comes from the old, old Hegelian -> Marxist tradition of viewing history as the resolution of contradictions (and then the emergence of the next). It can also be a sign of ignorance or lack of thoughtfulness.

But to MAGA, hypocrisy is a virtue. It's a sign of strength. This comes from a different tradition -- the tradition of the nobility who could break the law with impunity even as they would be harsh to others because, after all, they were the nobility. It comes from the tradition of slaveowners who would speak about black people and white people being totally incompatible, and how any extramarital sex was a sin, and so on . . . and then rape their slaves. I'm not saying that all MAGAs necessarily share those particular values, but I think they view hypocrisy that way. As a prerogative, not a weakness.

It reminds me of the MAGAs who brag that Trump could shoot someone and lose no support. My reaction, of course, is that they are shitting on themselves. They are saying, "we are sheep who will follow an immoral man blindly even if he does the most immoral things." But what they think they are saying is, "we are on the side of the winners, and that's why we like Trump, because he's a winner who could do anything and still win."

 

[rodoheel]

Yes. That's indeed the MAGA superpower in general.

I once wrote a post about how MAGA and liberals view hypocrisy differently. Liberals view hypocrisy as a sign of insincerity and weakness. It comes from the tradition of speaking truth to power. It comes from the old, old Hegelian -> Marxist tradition of viewing history as the resolution of contradictions (and then the emergence of the next). It can also be a sign of ignorance or lack of thoughtfulness.

But to MAGA, hypocrisy is a virtue. It's a sign of strength. This comes from a different tradition -- the tradition of the nobility who could break the law with impunity even as they would be harsh to others because, after all, they were the nobility. It comes from the tradition of slaveowners who would speak about black people and white people being totally incompatible, and how any extramarital sex was a sin, and so on . . . and then rape their slaves. I'm not saying that all MAGAs necessarily share those particular values, but I think they view hypocrisy that way. As a prerogative, not a weakness.

It reminds me of the MAGAs who brag that Trump could shoot someone and lose no support. My reaction, of course, is that they are shitting on themselves. They are saying, "we are sheep who will follow an immoral man blindly even if he does the most immoral things." But what they think they are saying is, "we are on the side of the winners, and that's why we like Trump, because he's a winner who could do anything and still win."

As I have said many times, going back at least as far as the era of the French Revolution, you could describe the primary animating principle of political conservatives as "rules for thee, but not for me." Sure, the issues and details and members of the movement have changed, but that's the core of it: I want to be able to do what I want without interference from the government, but the government should use its power to obliterate anything and everything that stands in the way of my prerogative.

 

[4thgenheel]

As I have said many times, going back at least as far as the era of the French Revolution, you could describe the primary animating principle political conservatives as "rules for thee, but not for me." Sure, the issues and details and members of the movement have changed, but that's the core of it: I want to be able to do what I want without interference from the government, but the government should use its power to obliterate anything and everything that stands in the way of my prerogative.

accurate.

i like Galbraith's take, too.....different side of the same coin, really:

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”​

 

[Ddseddse]

Yes. That's indeed the MAGA superpower in general.

I once wrote a post about how MAGA and liberals view hypocrisy differently. Liberals view hypocrisy as a sign of insincerity and weakness. It comes from the tradition of speaking truth to power. It comes from the old, old Hegelian -> Marxist tradition of viewing history as the resolution of contradictions (and then the emergence of the next). It can also be a sign of ignorance or lack of thoughtfulness.

But to MAGA, hypocrisy is a virtue. It's a sign of strength. This comes from a different tradition -- the tradition of the nobility who could break the law with impunity even as they would be harsh to others because, after all, they were the nobility. It comes from the tradition of slaveowners who would speak about black people and white people being totally incompatible, and how any extramarital sex was a sin, and so on . . . and then rape their slaves. I'm not saying that all MAGAs necessarily share those particular values, but I think they view hypocrisy that way. As a prerogative, not a weakness.

It reminds me of the MAGAs who brag that Trump could shoot someone and lose no support. My reaction, of course, is that they are shitting on themselves. They are saying, "we are sheep who will follow an immoral man blindly even if he does the most immoral things." But what they think they are saying is, "we are on the side of the winners, and that's why we like Trump, because he's a winner who could do anything and still win."

Sitting, alas unread, on my bookshelf...

Picked it up at a garage sale. Short read, but I've never invested in reading it, because I've always suspected there wasn't a whole lot of point in reading it.

 

[ZenMode]

1. You're making a category mistake. I'm not taking Trump's "fine people" comment at face value. I have no idea whether he believed that or not. The point is that he said it. Saying it is horrible. It's like calling a black person a n*. It doesn't matter what you actually think of black people. Maybe you're a tolerant person who loves all people equally (or maybe hates them all equally). Doesn't matter. The minute that n-word ventures forth from your lips, you've fucked up badly and in a way that should be disqualifying for public office unless perhaps there is TREMENDOUS contrition. If you call someone a n*, it doesn't do any good to say in the next breath, "oh, I didn't mean it that way," or "I love black people" or anything else. What you said was unacceptable, full stop.

Saying it is horrible if you ignore the fact that he clarified who he was referring to when he condemned the NN/WN (I think I used "WS" for White Supremacists at one point)

2. I'm not only relying on his words. I'm relying on his actions. Why did he meet with Nick Fuentes? Because Nick Fuentes was an asshole who Trump totallh doesn't support but he took the time to meet with him? Or because he thought Nick Fuentes was a fine person? It's clearly the latter. The reason, I think, that he thinks Fuentes is a fine person is simple: because Fuentes loves him. And that's probably what he meant about C'Ville too. But that's just the point.

The Nick Fuentes situation is a separate topic.

He's a POS narcissist and you should stop apologizing for him.

He IS a POS narcissist but, again, this isn't about Trump specifically. This is about being accurate by understanding the full context of situations and not intentionally excluding/manipulating or misrepresenting someone's words.

 

[OldWHEEL]

Nm

 

[StrangePackage]

accurate.

i like Galbraith's take, too.....different side of the same coin, really:

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”​

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

 

[SmilingJack]

That's the way nearly all Trumpers are - they'll say they don't support him, but then spend 95% of their time defending him and basically agreeing with most of his policies. It's probably the main reason he consistently seems to do better than his polling averages suggest, at least until this year.

Jesse Helms 2.0

 

[eternalheel]

The double standard with which these two candidates are covered is sickening. If Kamala Harris had gone on stage last night and shouted ineligible nonsense about immigrants eating dogs & doctors killing babies her candidacy would be over! She would be decried as a crazy person unfit to hold the office of president. I'm fairly certain her party would drop her! And this goes beyond last night. A week ago Trump claimed that your children go off to school and come home a few days later a completely different gender! Insinuating that our school systems (who can barely afford basic supplies) provide them with sex change operations!

I just cannot fathom how this election is close. I do not understand why the media will not cover Trump accordingly. This man has disqualified himself from this race time and time again, yet they continue to normalize his crazy right wing extremism.

How could an undecided voter be undecided at this stage of the game? I simply do not understand why the bar is so much higher for her than it is him... All I hear from undecideds are questions about her policy... WHAT ARE TRUMPS POLICIES? More importantly, who cares? His felonious record would preclude him from delivering your mail... but you want him to have nuclear codes?

It has to be misogyny.


(And pardon me if you have previously discussed this double standard, I'm new here)

The people are the disease. The media, now, all media, is the sweet and sour topping accelerating the cancer.

This is why I violently SMH when ppl I like are still playing the cnn is "left" card.

Cnn is in it for the eyeballs. The game is over. You can get better news coverage from a random person on TikTok.

 

[MendotoManteo]

Hierarchy v. equality. Any law or rule, even any value or idea, can be cast aside at a moment's notice as long as doing so is perceived as serving hierarchy. That's the only value conservatism has that cannot be cast away.