Politically motivated violence thread

[BugI02]

Prove that those who use the phrase "enemy of the people" (including Trump) are ignorant of the actual meaning of the phrase? "Context" here is like defending those who say "*****rdly" is a bad word because they don't know what it means.

Ok.

The Lenin quote in one of my posts above is a good starting point. Stalin really gave it the "eradication" angle.

Did some quick googling to confirm my recollection, and here's a decent overview.
https://www.econlib.org/enemy-of-the-people/

And actually, wiki does a solid job regarding the origins, too, although it clearly has an anti-Trump bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_people

There is no difference in moral amplitude between the two phrases.

Oh, unless you want to use semantics to say, "Well, Trump doesn't mean it like THAT (because he's ignorant of that meaning)." But then you'd have to prove he's ignorant of it. He's one of the smartest people in history according to his supporters.

ETA:
Oh snap. The forum censor dictionary is ignorant of a certain word synonymous with "miserly" that starts with an "n."

Where you constantly err is in calibrating the threat. Most of the time, to hear you tell it, Trump's utterances betray a lack of knowledge and nuance as well as ignorance. But let Trump say something that can be twisted to that narrative that you are so enamored of, and he suddenly becomes the ominous orator of precisely targeted messages of hate and prejudice instructing his brownshirts everywhere on the next step in his campaign to overthrow the government and become Il Arancio


When I look at the political landscape today, I don't see Trumpism as the looming threat. I see Socialism/Communism assuming that role, with legions of candidates who arguably have the same chance of becoming president that Trump did at this point in 2015. I see people absolutely salivating at the chance to become the new Jacobins and make an old school attempt to control our thoughts, our actions and every aspect of our lives backed up by an empowered big government and cheered on by the true fifth column of the bulk of the fourth estate


I find your willingness to overlook without comment someone saying the Republican party needs to be burnt down with no survivors while attributing great import to Trump's superficially similar to Stalin quote to be telling. If context is important, it's important on every occasion. You're free to interpret that context as you wish and so am I. You are even free to call me out for slanting my interpretation, according to my predilection, reliably in one direction; as I am free to observe that you might be happier as a commentator at CNN or lecturing to the choir on twitter


What you are not free to do is conclude that you are obviously right and morality is on your side and expect others will meekly go along with that. If you're so fond of the historical perspective, perhaps consider why we still know the name of Tomás de Torquemada

 

[jamil]

Prove that those who use the phrase "enemy of the people" (including Trump) are ignorant of the actual meaning of the phrase? "Context" here is like defending those who say "*****rdly" is a bad word because they don't know what it means.

Ok.

The Lenin quote in one of my posts above is a good starting point. Stalin really gave it the "eradication" angle.

Did some quick googling to confirm my recollection, and here's a decent overview.
https://www.econlib.org/enemy-of-the-people/

And actually, wiki does a solid job regarding the origins, too, although it clearly has an anti-Trump bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_people

There is no difference in moral amplitude between the two phrases.

Oh, unless you want to use semantics to say, "Well, Trump doesn't mean it like THAT (because he's ignorant of that meaning)." But then you'd have to prove he's ignorant of it. He's one of the smartest people in history according to his supporters.

ETA:
Oh snap. The forum censor dictionary is ignorant of a certain word synonymous with "miserly" that starts with an "n."

We're just talking past each other at this point. Okay. One more try.

I don't have to read your links. I'll just trust that those links say what you say they're saying. It just doesn't matter. Logically, I don't have to prove anybody knew anything about any prior uses of the phrase "enemy of the people". You should know that. Those right wing guys who are calling people enemies of the people, are not saying it because of its past. They're saying it because they think people are their enemies because of what they advocate for, and how they advocate it. Anti gun people are "the enemy of the people". Democrats are "enemies of the people". The left leaning press is the enemies of the people. There's no reason to believe that they're speaking in code, intentionally conjuring up Stalin, of all people. :rolleyes" Good grief, You people already think they're literally Hitler! THAT's not Stalin! Stalin would be more for the left to quote.

I haven't heard any of these people talking about eradicating people. Well, okay. Maybe James Yeager says stuff like that. But he's ****ing crazy. The woke bluecheck twiterotti are actually calling for violence against what they're calling the "enemy of the people". That's what makes this not a moral equivalence. It doesn't matter how that phrase was used in the past. It doesn't even matter if anyone using it is aware of how it was used in the past. It matters how they mean it now. It especially matters that they mean to wish violence on those who they consider their enemies. So it's on you to prove that they mean it in equivalent ways. Trying to give me a history lesson on how it was used in the past isn't a relevant point. It's a red herring.

Or. How about this. Ask the part of INGO who says Democrats, or anti-gun people, or the press, whatever, are "enemies of the people", if they mean it in a way that this "enemy" should be eradicated. If so, I'll concede and admit they're moral equivalents.

INGO?

 

[printcraft]

Yes they are an enemy and they need to **** off and be thrown out of the government where they can have no power over my rights.

I don’t want them dead, I want their influence removed.

 

[jamil]

**** off? **** off you say? Oh, the humanity! Oh, the violence!

 

[Nazgul]

Jamil"..And there is some ​

amplitidinal​

distance between calling***"


Amplitudinal...maybe.

Don
​

 

[jamil]

Jamil"..And there is some ​

amplitidinal​

distance between calling***"


Amplitudinal...maybe.

Don
​

Hey. I pecked that **** out with my phat thumbs on my iphone. With its ****ty “keyboard”. Gimme a break. The i and the u are creepy Joe close to each other.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Dave Chapelle goes after Jussie Smollett in his new comedy special on Netflix brilliantly. Good stuff.

 

[Nazgul]

Hey. I pecked that **** out with my phat thumbs on my iphone. With its ****ty “keyboard”. Gimme a break. The i and the u are creepy Joe close to each other.

 

[churchmouse]

Dave Chapelle goes after Jussie Smollett in his new comedy special on Netflix brilliantly. Good stuff.

Our girl in the trenches was giving this high praise yesterday.

 

[T.Lex]

We're just talking past each other at this point.

Probably true.

Those right wing guys who are calling people enemies of the people, are not saying it because of its past. They're saying it because they think people are their enemies because of what they advocate for, and how they advocate it. Anti gun people are "the enemy of the people". Democrats are "enemies of the people". The left leaning press is the enemies of the people. There's no reason to believe that they're speaking in code, intentionally conjuring up Stalin, of all people. :rolleyes" Good grief, You people already think they're literally Hitler! THAT's not Stalin! Stalin would be more for the left to quote.

I haven't heard any of these people talking about eradicating people. Well, okay. Maybe James Yeager says stuff like that. But he's ****ing crazy. The woke bluecheck twiterotti are actually calling for violence against what they're calling the "enemy of the people". That's what makes this not a moral equivalence. It doesn't matter how that phrase was used in the past. It doesn't even matter if anyone using it is aware of how it was used in the past. It matters how they mean it now. It especially matters that they mean to wish violence on those who they consider their enemies. So it's on you to prove that they mean it in equivalent ways. Trying to give me a history lesson on how it was used in the past isn't a relevant point. It's a red herring.

So your expectation is that I divine the intent of their innermost thoughts? Oh my.

Alas, I can only go by the words being used. Those words have meanings.

Or. How about this. Ask the part of INGO who says Democrats, or anti-gun people, or the press, whatever, are "enemies of the people", if they mean it in a way that this "enemy" should be eradicated. If so, I'll concede and admit they're moral equivalents.

INGO?

Look, there's a finite number of ways this plays out with regard to "enemy of the people" usage:
- the person saying it has never heard it before, thinks they're making it up for the first time, and is completely ignorant of its meaning;
- the person saying it has kinda heard it before, can't really remember where, is generally ignorant of its meaning, but it sure expresses the intensity of emotion;
- the person saying it has heard it before, knows what it represents, and uses it anyway without caring;
- the person saying it has heard it before, knows what it represents, and intends to use it in its historic meaning.

Yes they are an enemy and they need to **** off and be thrown out of the government where they can have no power over my rights.

I don’t want them dead, I want their influence removed.

Then they are not "enemies of the people." They might suck. They might be jerks. They might be nattering naybobs of negativity or some other made up phrase. But they are not "enemies of the people."

Again, if we're going to dilute the actual meaning of things, ok fine. There's nothing I (or anyone else) can really do to stop it. The meaning of words change over time, and that's a fact.

But I think it poor form to bastardize the meaning to defend that dilution.

Literally, it would be like accepting the left's re-definition of "concentration camp" to mean "a place where people are concentrated together in a group." No, that's not right. "Concentration camp" has a very specific meaning post-WWII, full of connotation. Ignoring that is ignoring an important part of history.

But yeah, we're talking around each other on that. You're ok with it; I'm not so much. And that's ok.

 

[jamil]

Probably true.



So your expectation is that I divine the intent of their innermost thoughts? Oh my.

Alas, I can only go by the words being used. Those words have meanings.



Look, there's a finite number of ways this plays out with regard to "enemy of the people" usage:
- the person saying it has never heard it before, thinks they're making it up for the first time, and is completely ignorant of its meaning;
- the person saying it has kinda heard it before, can't really remember where, is generally ignorant of its meaning, but it sure expresses the intensity of emotion;
- the person saying it has heard it before, knows what it represents, and uses it anyway without caring;
- the person saying it has heard it before, knows what it represents, and intends to use it in its historic meaning.



Then they are not "enemies of the people." They might suck. They might be jerks. They might be nattering naybobs of negativity or some other made up phrase. But they are not "enemies of the people."

Again, if we're going to dilute the actual meaning of things, ok fine. There's nothing I (or anyone else) can really do to stop it. The meaning of words change over time, and that's a fact.

But I think it poor form to bastardize the meaning to defend that dilution.

Literally, it would be like accepting the left's re-definition of "concentration camp" to mean "a place where people are concentrated together in a group." No, that's not right. "Concentration camp" has a very specific meaning post-WWII, full of connotation. Ignoring that is ignoring an important part of history.

But yeah, we're talking around each other on that. You're ok with it; I'm not so much. And that's ok.

Damn, dude, you’re acting like there only and ever was one meaning. And it’s not me that’s asking you to divine the intent of their innermost heart. You’ve already done that. You did it when you made it a moral equivalent.

I’ll make it easy for you. The only way it’s a moral equivalent is if they think that these “enemies of the people” need to be eradicated. That’s a binary. It either is or isn’t equivalent.

So, if you think it’s a moral equivalent, it’s on you to prove that it is. Saying that other people in the past have wanted to eradicate “enemies of the people” doesn’t mean everyone who says that wants these so called “enemies” eradicated.

I’ve asked you to argue against that because that’s the proposition I’m making. Then you go off and try to say that everyone who invokes the phrase must mean the same thing that someone else in history meant by it. It’s a red herring and a waste of time and I’m pretty sure you know it.

 

[T.Lex]

I'm pretty sure you're just skimming my posts. I clearly said that it is possible that the people saying it are ignorant of how it has been used, or know of it and don't care. (Among other options.) I also pointed out that meanings evolve.

If you want to dilute "eradicated" too, then we can also say that "eradicated" doesn't mean "dead." It means, "have their influence removed from society" like printcraft wants. The "eradicated" dude could just as easily qualify his meaning in the same way others are diluting "enemy of the people" to reach a moral equivalency of "it isn't really that bad."

I'm not saying that, because I think that would be a distortion. But your apologist approach certainly allows for it.

I do not think it a waste of time to encourage people to use words that mean what they intend.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Words have meaning and are constantly being misused? Yes, by all means we should either stop using them or use them properly.

Lets start with “decimated”. It should mean “to reduce by 10%”. Instead it’s used when they really meant “obliterated” because they were trying to say something was destroyed. “Paradise, CA was decimated by the wildfire when it burned to the ground”

 

[T.Lex]

Words have meaning and are constantly being misused? Yes, by all means we should either stop using them or use them properly.

Lets start with “decimated”. It should mean “to reduce by 10%”. Instead it’s used when they really meant “obliterated” because they were trying to say something was destroyed. “Paradise, CA was decimated by the wildfire when it burned to the ground”

Literally, my most recent pet peeve misuse is "literally."

Mostly from my teen/early 20s kids.

But, to bring it full circle, "literally" in contemporary parlance is a signal of intensity. Likewise, "enemy of the people" is apparently being diluted into "I really don't like the people I'm talking about" as a signal of intensity. I just disagree with that usage, in a quixotic way.

 

[HoughMade]

Literally, my most recent pet peeve misuse is "literally."

Mostly from my teen/early 20s kids.

But, to bring it full circle, "literally" in contemporary parlance is a signal of intensity. Likewise, "enemy of the people" is apparently being diluted into "I really don't like the people I'm talking about" as a signal of intensity. I just disagree with that usage, in a quixotic way.

This is your quest?

[video=youtube;zbgTUwUP-ew]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbgTUwUP-ew[/video]

 

[T.Lex]

This is your quest?

It feels like it.

 

[printcraft]

Then they are not "enemies of the people." They might suck. They might be jerks. They might be nattering naybobs of negativity or some other made up phrase. But they are not "enemies of the people".

I think you are looking at this as "battlefield enemy". Enemy has more levels, it always has.

They are definitely an enemy of freedom, just like emotion is the enemy of logic.

They are trying to destroy the freedoms of this country, that doesn't sound like a friend to me.
Not a friend = X

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. -
Abraham Lincoln

Did he mean "literally" destroyed as in nothing but ash is left and everyone is dead or the ideals and freedoms of America would be destroyed?

 

[BugI02]

I'm pretty sure you're just skimming my posts. I clearly said that it is possible that the people saying it are ignorant of how it has been used, or know of it and don't care. (Among other options.) I also pointed out that meanings evolve.

If you want to dilute "eradicated" too, then we can also say that "eradicated" doesn't mean "dead." It means, "have their influence removed from society" like printcraft wants. The "eradicated" dude could just as easily qualify his meaning in the same way others are diluting "enemy of the people" to reach a moral equivalency of "it isn't really that bad."

I'm not saying that, because I think that would be a distortion. But your apologist approach certainly allows for it.

I do not think it a waste of time to encourage people to use words that mean what they intend.

Please, sir; can we have [STRIKE]some more[/STRIKE] [your permission to say 'enemy of 46% of the people']

 

[T.Lex]

I think you are looking at this as "battlefield enemy". Enemy has more levels, it always has.

They are definitely an enemy of freedom, just like emotion is the enemy of logic.

They are trying to destroy the freedoms of this country, that doesn't sound like a friend to me.
Not a friend = X

If Trump (or whomever) was coining the phrase, then I'd be right there with you. That's why I include ignorance of the historical use as a legitimate defense of using it in the USian political context.

My issue is not with "enemy" as a rhetorical flourish. Leftists as "enemy of conservatism" or "enemy of all that is good and just in the world" or "enemy of my enemy." Ok. Fine. I'm not quarreling with that.

But, I can't really ignore the historical context for that exact phrase. I spent alot of time and money familiarizing myself with one particular regime associated with it (and even earned some paychecks with the expertise). Perhaps I'm being too technocrati about it, but so be it.

 

[BugI02]

And did you have similar qualms about either Bush using "New World Order", or is it just all about Trump