Saturday, March 18, 2017

The most Fascist Behavior of 2016 Award...

... should go to city's that did nothing to restrain progressives from physically attacking Trump supporters.

Now, a federal judge has permitted Trump supporters to sue San Jose for failing to protect them against violence from Clinton/Sander supporters.

As I pointed out in my review of Timothy Snyder's "On Tyranny, where the Yale professor has thought long and hard and come to the novel conclusion that Trump is Literally Hitler, it is hard not to remember Hillary/Sander supporters attacking Trump supporters and not see the Brown Shirts circa 1932.




10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Does it feel odd to sound just like the idiot Yale professor, or do you fail to experience the irony?

Peter Bradley said...

I didn't call Prof Snyder an idiot.

I also didn't write a book trading in the popular leftist trope that Trump is Literally Hitler.

However, if one is inclined to indulge in that kind of over the top rhetoric, what else would you call the attack on Trump supporters and the riots after the election other than a Brownshirt-style of politics?

Serious question.

Look forward to your answer.

Anonymous said...

Actually, I called the professor an idiot. I think any discourse that ends in labeling one side "Nazi" or "Hitler" or "Brown Shirts" idiotic.

Peter Bradley said...

Let's examine your position: You think that name-calling is idiotic, so you call people names?

Not seeing the consistency in your position.

Obviously, though, words like fascist, Hitler and brownshirts can communicate some content. Your mistake is in assuming that they are meant to be merely insulting. Brownshirts made a practice of attacking the political meetings of their opponents, just like we saw the Clintonist/Sanderist/Black Battalion Anarchist do to Trump supporters in 2016. Calling that behavior "brownshirt-like" is a discription. Any insult lies in the truth of that behavior resembling Brownshirt tactics.

Likewise, Fascism involved a coordination of economic and political spheres and the coordination of media. Looking at Obama's health care policies and calling them "fascist" is a description.

You might not like the description, but then you should interact with the definition or the description, not just call people names.

Calling someone Hitler, though, seems to be nothing more than name-calling since only Hitler was Hitler. Even Stalin and Pol Pot were not Hitler.

To summarize, you of all people are not in a position to point fingers about name-calling since that is pretty much your rhetorical stock in trade.

Peter Bradley said...

Also, you didn't answer my question, once again.

Let's put up the question again for you to answer:

If one is inclined to indulge in the kind of over the top rhetoric that Professor Snyder indulged in, what else should one call the attack on Trump supporters and the riots after the election other than a Brownshirt-style of politics?

Still waiting for the answer.

Anonymous said...

The prof is an idiot, a point we can all agree on. Is the fact he is an idiot your excuse for the same behavior?

Peter Bradley said...

You still didn't answer my question or my argument.

This seems to be difficult for your to understand, but try. My point was that someone who looks around and sees Literally Hitler in Trump but doesn't notice Brown-shirt behavior on the other side is not engaging in anything like good faith scholarship.

Once Professor Snyder started to play the Nazi card, then good faith scholarship should have led him to address all Nazi parallels, otherwise, he's purely a hack, not a scholar.

That was my point, namely, Snyder's book, which traffics in the Literally Hitler trope to the applause of your tribe.

Obviously, you choose to miss this point, as you seem unfailingly to do with my posts. Your chief aim seems to be to create a strawman that you can feel good about attacking, which is why I ignore you for the most part.

But let's get down to the other issue: How do you describe the conduct of the Clinton/Sanders supporters who physically assaulted Trump supporters at Trump rallies in obvious imitation of Brown Shirt tactics?

I acknowledge your effort not to address this point, but that kind of disingenuousness is another reason I choose to ignore you.

Peter Bradley said...

The prof is an idiot, a point we can all agree on.//

And, no, I don't agree.

Prof Snyder is not an idiot. "Bloodlands" is an informed and effective effort to treat Eastern Europe as an analytical unit that provides a lot of insight.

That is why I was disappointed in this book.

Snyder is not an idiot; he is a true-believing progressive, which has, unfortunately, distorted his objectivity.

Have you read anything by Timothy Snyder?

Anonymous said...

Hmmmm, as you may or may not know, the vast majority of "progressives" or "liberals" or Democrats do not think Trump is literally Hitler. Your statement "Snyder is not an idiot; he is a true-believing progressive, which has, unfortunately, distorted his objectivity" clearly implies that you believe progressives as a "tribe" believe otherwise. That's a ridiculous generalization that isn't even close to being true. The fact that the professor believes Trump is literally Hitler means he is an idiot.

As to your point: "My point was that someone who looks around and sees Literally Hitler in Trump but doesn't notice Brown-shirt behavior on the other side is not engaging in anything like good faith scholarship." I get it. Let me restate my point in the same terms as yours: Trump is not Hitler, not even close. Progressives are not Brown-shirts, not even close. Those who state or imply otherwise are making idiotic statements and apparently can't recognize such when they see it directed at them.

Peter Bradley said...

*Sigh*

I didn't expect you to answer my questions. If you had done so, it would have meant a real conversation - rather than your endless parade of strawman objections - and required you to think outside of the narrow box you have yourself confined to.

First, I offered evidence that Snyder was being applauded by progressives. Go look at the many five star reviews being provided for this unfortunately one-sided, histrionic book.

Second, I notice that your argument has been pure tu quoque without condemning the many examples I have presented of progressives using the Nazi meme. You eventually called Snyder an "idiot" but that was only as part of your efforts to walk back another false strawman that you initially ascribed to me.

Third, in yet another strawman, you ascribe to me the position that progressives are not Brownshirts.

But I never said that all progressives were Brownshirts. In contrast, I have said repeatedly that these progressives - the ones who attacked Trump supporters - engaged in tactics reminiscent of the Brownshirts, which is absolutely true.

I have asked you repeatedly to explain why the comparison is false.

You haven't been able to offer an argument. Rather, you just cycle between name-calling and tu quoque arguments.

And that is why it is a waste of time to interact with you.

 
Who links to me?