No I live in Europe. And if I didn’t I wouldn’t worry about it until there’s armed men in uniforms and red armbands walking the streets. I’ve found the best coping mechanism to the overabundance and inflation of information due to the internet, is to simply live within your horizon. I see no musk/trump, I fear no musk/trump. Have a great day, hope your cortisol levels are good.
If you now tell me, a, but I live in <insert more specific European country>, you'll know just as well as I do that the fascists are on the rise in every European country.
When they start marching down the streets it will already be far too late. And if you think we're safe just because we live across the pond, well... remember that there is no European army, and that so far our leaders have been extremely passive in the face of obvious political interferences, in e.g. Germany.
This is a common type of argument that my friends and colleagues have offered me. Perhaps it doesn't make sense to help with wildfire relief because my house didn't burn down. Perhaps it doesn't make sense to have concerns about systemd because I use BSD. Perhaps it is a waste of resources to ensure HIV positive people have access to medicine because I don't have HIV.
How much time do you really spend worrying about all of the things you could be worrying about? Maybe you really do worry about SystemD, after all you thought to mention it, but couldn't that time and emotional energy be spent on climate change or malaria instead? Your resources are finite and the list of things you could be worrying about include many which could easily swallow all of your time and energy. You must be prioritizing some while neglecting others, using some manner of selection function biased towards local and personal matters. Which is fine, and completely natural. I cleaned my house yesterday, time I could have spent advocating the cause of mosquito nets.
"Local residents confronted and drove off neo-Nazi demonstrators waving large swastika-emblazoned flags along a highway overpass on Friday between Lincoln Heights and Evendale, Ohio, home to a historically Black community that has endured a long history of racism... As they approached the neo-Nazis, the demonstrators, which Talbert said were carrying guns, called them the N-word."
Whose side is currently dismantling the government to profit a few billionaires? Whose side is doing nazi salutes at rallies and giving white supremacists illegal positions of power (see the political views of the aforementioned individual named "bigballs" in the article above)? Neither court nor congress will attempt anything on Trump or Musk anymore. They are going after judges and journalists who dare report what they are illegally doing.
It absolutely is and always has been a "just one side" issue. Fascists are consolidating their powers by the day but somehow it's on progressives to be more civilized?
Cool, you cherry-picked some radical and terrible things. I can find some examples of progressives doing radical and terrible things, too.
This whataboutism is unrelated to the point I was making, and entirely representative of the kind of thinking that is facilitating and encouraging the dissolution of political discourse in this country.
When your first response to someone suggesting that you might be part of the problem is to excuse every bad action from your side by pointing to the egregious actions of the other, you tell me that you have no interest in having a good-faith discussion with anyone who disagrees with you, even slightly. We may agree on most topics, even, and yet you come out of the gate swinging because I suggested your side (which is also my own side!) might be part of the problem.
How then can you expect someone like me to believe you actually have my best interests in mind? Responses like this are not convincing that we even are on the same side, even if we agree on most things!
P.S. The problem with whataboutism is that it undermines your point. If you're offended when "the other side" does a thing, you should be even more offended when your own side does it, because it represents a betrayal of your values. The fact that you're using the other side's bad behavior to entirely discount criticisms about your side's behavior just tells me you don't actually think it's bad behavior when your side does it. At the end of the day, the message I get from that is "rules for thee, but not for me".
Trust me, "they go low, we go high" never worked and never will. Anything the right can criticize an opponent on, they will blast on Fox news and X 24/7, with nonstop propaganda and added lies, but Elon does a nazi salute on live TV twice and it's barely acknowledged.
I'll be succinct: no amount of courtesy and patience will deradicalize a fascist. The only thing that can get us out of this mess is a constant reminder to the people that aren't radicalized yet, that what Musk and his goons are doing is not OK and actually very dangerous to everything and everyone they hold dear. Use your voice while you still can.
(Also, I doubt you could find anything the left ever did to this country that would remotely compare in severity to what republicans are currently doing. And even if you could, they are not the source of the current threats our democracy, rights and freedom faces.)
Ah, so "hate has no place here" never was a serious statement?
Amazing how much the progressive movement has changed over the past few years, and in no way for the better.
Please understand: people very rarely change their beliefs without both push and pull mechanisms being in effect. The Democratic party lost this election soundly, which is strong evidence that a) they lack a meaningful message to attract people not yet on their side, or b) they are projecting a powerful message that's pushing existing allies out; or some combination of the two where the "push" outweighs the "pull". Doubling down on the "push" when it's being called out as such hardly seems like a recipe for success?
One place where I've experienced this personally is the increasingly extreme rhetoric coming from self-professed progressives; to the point where they are now blatantly contradicting the words of yesterday with the actions of today.
While I agree that what's happening with DOGE has the potential to be dangerous, it's also 100% in line with the professed goals of the effort: a full audit of government spending, efficiency, and waste.
So while the rhetoric you're peddling is indeed worrisome and plausible, it's also the same overblown conspiracy-minded rhetoric that has been evolving over the same time period I mentioned. Most of that rhetoric has turned out to be entirely unfounded, so I have trouble believing that this time will be different.
This is an entirely self-inflicted wound on the part of people who share your opinions and methods. You keep making wild predictions, and they keep not coming true. I would believe that some of them have "come true" for some definition of "true", and probably enough for you to maintain your belief in the righteousness of your cause; but as an apparent "outsider", I'm less convinced.
[E] I do have to point this out, though:
> Anything the right can criticize an opponent on, they will blast on Fox news and X 24/7, with nonstop propaganda and added lies, but Elon does a nazi salute on live TV twice and it's barely acknowledged.
The irony of making this statement given the amount of ink spilled over the last couple weeks (more like years!) criticizing anything remotely related to "Elon Musk". The lack of self-awareness is saddening.
I do not hate anyone, besides the fascists currently running the show.
I know you couldn't convince a red cap wearing MAGA fanatic to vote blue, just like you couldn't convince me to vote red. But most people aren't politicized, and those are the ones that need reminders of what is going on up there.
We do agree on the fact the democrats lost soundly, after leading a pathetic campaign against a lunatic who by any metric should have been defeated without a sweat. But I think that's where we disagree most: Trump won through populism, and wether you like it or not (I don't), we now live in populist times.
The democrats were playing as if Project 2025 didn't exist, as if the republicans were still playing by the rules. If Biden said one tenth of the sh*t Trump said during his campaign, it'd have become a central talking point of Trump's.
And now millions will get deported, all US aid in the world suddenly ended, causing millions more to suffer. Minorities are losing rights by the day, etc.
Also, why are you labelling me as a conspiracist? Did I ever lie? What DOGE is doing is illegal. They are employing neonazis. They are going after judges and journalists. Congress is doing nothing to oppose this. Notice how I didn't make a single prediction. Shouldn't this alone be enough to be concerned?
You put too much faith in the strength of our democracy and institutions.
> I do not hate anyone, besides the fascists currently running the show.
So you hate a lot of people, then. Democrats made "hate has no place here" a key slogan back around the time of George Floyd, and some people at the time felt like it was just posturing and pandering to the zeitgeist. This level of hatred that's now being openly leveled against anyone you feel like labeling a "fascist" does nothing but prove those people right.
You do see how this is ultimately self-defeating, right? It utterly destroys your faction's credibility, especially because your faction is no longer even maintaining the pretense that they're opposed to hate "in all forms", despite that being a key piece of messaging only a few years ago. This destroys trust, and trust is your most valuable asset.
> We do agree on the fact the democrats lost soundly, after leading a pathetic campaign against a lunatic who by any metric should have been defeated without a sweat. But I think that's where we disagree most: Trump won through populism, and wether you like it or not (I don't), we now live in populist times.
I think populism is a large part of it, but is not the only reason he won. The Uncommitted movement shares some blame there, as does the increasingly hateful progressive rhetoric that is still being given the largest of megaphones. As a prime example of this, I watched the entirety of the most recent (I think?) House Oversight Committee meeting, and was abjectly embarrassed by the level of demagoguery on display by the Democratic members of the committee. The irony was that it was a meeting about "government efficiency"! The constant obstructionism and deflections and blatant sound-byte farming by the Democrats on the panel really highlighted their inability to be "efficient", and really could not have made the Republicans' points more effectively. It's a sad day when I find myself agreeing with the logic and reasoning of some of the most toxic Republican members of Congress, especially when I feel that the delivery of their points was highly objectionable. I (un?)fortunately believe that logic and reasoning can stand apart from delivery, so despite how utterly abrasive some of the speakers were, I'm forced to admit they demonstrated sound reasoning. Despite all of that, the whole thing was a complete and total "self-own" by the Democrats, and cannot even charitably be described in any other way. The bar was set pathetically low, and still they could not clear it.
To me, Democrats are demonstrating that, at every level, all they can do is complain about how "bad" the other side is, while constantly ignoring the concerns of the people that voted that side into power. Going back to my "push" and "pull" analogy, while the "pull" of populism certainly helped get Trump elected (the why of which is worth a lot of inspection, but would be an entire tangent of its own), the "push" of the Democrats' increasing detachment from reality is also partially to blame. A whole debate should be had at the relative contributions of each of these things to Trump's victory, but to try to claim as fact that "populism was the largest factor" is both arrogant and ignorant, especially a mere 3 months later. These are the kinds of complicated, nuanced things that are rarely ever conclusively decided, so to try to push a specific conclusion as fact at this point is elitist speculation at best, and outright misinformation at worst.
> The democrats were playing as if Project 2025 didn't exist, as if the republicans were still playing by the rules. If Biden said one tenth of the sh*t Trump said during his campaign, it'd have become a central talking point of Trump's.
I suspect this has more to do with Democrats trying to avoid drawing attention to their lack of a "Project 2025" of their own. Democrats are often the loudest voices for sweeping change (universal health care, for example), and yet have never managed to put together a coherent plan of action to the level of detail/scope of "Project 2025". I don't agree with much in Project 2025, but after reading through some of it I'm impressed by the level of detail and thought put into it. It represents a massive undertaking across a broad range of expertise, and yet is more coherent, coordinated, and cooperative than anything the Democrats have been capable of achieving in a very long time (if ever!). Democrats' constant infighting and alienation of their moderates cripples their ability to execute at this level, and I don't think they want to draw any attention to that.
> And now millions will get deported, all US aid in the world suddenly ended, causing millions more to suffer. Minorities are losing rights by the day, etc.
I feel like this is another area we disagree. I don't think people who are not in the country legally have a right to stay here. I think deportations are an important mechanism in a country's border security policy, and not engaging in them is antithetical to having an effective entry process. There's a reason why we want people to go through the legal process(es) of entry; I don't think folks who do an end-run around that should be rewarded by being allowed to stay.
I also highly doubt "all US aid in the world" would end. They've been very clear about this: their benchmark for aid is "is it in the US' interests?" This is a complicated question, but there certainly is a lot of aid that the US gives that is still in this administration's interests.
To make an earlier point concrete: Blowing this up into "all US aid might suddenly end" is unnecessarily sensationalist and almost certainly untrue. This is an excellent example of the kinds of rhetoric that I find to be providing the most "push" from the Democratic party. If I'm being charitable and giving the public the benefit of the doubt, I suspect only people who already hate this administration actually take this rhetoric at face value. Others, like myself, are skeptical of it, because even putting a moment's skepticism into it makes the argument fall apart. The original executive order pausing aid [0] has explicit carve-outs for aid programs to be resumed or exempted from the pause, and makes it clear that the purpose of the pause is to review the programs for consistency with US' interests (as defined by the current administration). This is not "all US aid in the world might suddenly end", even under the most charitable of interpretations.
> Also, why are you labelling me as a conspiracist? Did I ever lie? What DOGE is doing is illegal. They are employing neonazis. They are going after judges and journalists. Congress is doing nothing to oppose this. Notice how I didn't make a single prediction. Shouldn't this alone be enough to be concerned?
Because of your logic and reasoning demonstrated so far? See the previous paragraph for an example. People around you are injecting their own invented intentions and biases on the actions that are happening, and you are accepting them without question. I don't question the reporting on the actions themselves (somewhat, there's a lot of mixing of fact and conjecture), and I absolutely agree that DOGE is doing things that are questionably legal (and likely illegal, given what I know). The problem is, those actions are also entirely consistent with the purported goal of the department: auditing the spending of the federal government. When auditors audit a company, they generally are given full access to all financial records, so they can do their job effectively. Their actions so far have also been entirely consistent with their charter as established by the EO that created DOGE [1].
Whether or not what DOGE is doing is actually illegal (i.e. represents executive overreach) is for legal system to decide, not you, me, or the legislature (unless you or I happen to actually be part of said system). And they will do so; but that is not something that happens instantly. And by all accounts, Musk and his team are simply executing orders from Trump, even if they're being given large leeway in how they execute them. This means they are doing what they're doing with the explicit authority of the executive branch; how far that authority goes is not something I'm qualified to assess. Then again, the majority of folks who are speculating on it are also unqualified to make such assessments, but that hasn't stopped them from doing so, nor has it stopped you from taking their opinions at face value.
I would need some citations on the "going after judges and journalists" bit, because that's news to me.
> You put too much faith in the strength of our democracy and institutions.
No, I've just stopped putting so much faith in the loudest voices in the Democratic party. They've been wrong more often than they've been right, have demonstrated an incredible ability to alienate some of their most powerful allies and largest demographics, and have demonstrated a complete inability to unify anyone, preferring instead to be increasingly divisive as they lose ground.
Well excuse me for failing to show kindness to the most bigoted and hateful beings on the planet. Hating hatred is not the same as blind hate. To be clear, I throw no vitriol to Trump voters, only to elected republicans actively pushing to maim and wound our legal system, minorities, political opponents, etc. Which to be fair, is quite a lot of them.
I have no idea what you're referring to with "hateful progressive rhetoric". I do not hold the democrats in my heart either, but can you seriously claim the democrats are anything remotely comparable to the republicans when it comes to hating stuff?
> To me, Democrats are demonstrating that, at every level, all they can do is complain about how "bad" the other side is
Seemed to work well enough for the republicans.
> I suspect this has more to do with Democrats trying to avoid drawing attention to their lack of a "Project 2025" of their own.
Democrats couldn't have had a "Project 2025" because something as large can't be realized that quickly in a reasonable democracy. And why would they want one of their own? Republicans acted like it didn't exist because they knew it looked very bad, as was confirmed by the polls. Why didn't the dems use that? Confront Trump and Vance on their constant lying.
> I don't think people who are not in the country legally have a right to stay here.
You're a fool if you really believe they will stop at only illegal residents. In fact, go read the news right now. They also deport legal residents now. ICE now acts unconstrained from any oversight, free to deport on racial criterion. They have deportation quotas and sanctions if they don't fulfill them.
> I also highly doubt "all US aid in the world" would end.
It already did.
> Whether or not what DOGE is doing is actually illegal (i.e. represents executive overreach) is for legal system to decide, not you, me, or the legislature (unless you or I happen to actually be part of said system).
It is illegal, go read what lawyers are saying. Trump does not hold absolute power (yet), we don't live in a monarchy (yet). He is supposed to abide by the law but doesn't. Which is why I am concerned. I feel like talking to a wall here.
> No, I've just stopped putting so much faith in the loudest voices in the Democratic party. They've been wrong more often than they've been right, have demonstrated an incredible ability to alienate some of their most powerful allies and largest demographics, and have demonstrated a complete inability to unify anyone, preferring instead to be increasingly divisive as they lose ground.
We do agree on the basic issue, but I think our conclusions are completely opposite. You seem to advocate for the democrat becoming some sort of republicans-lite. This won't help anyone, not even themselves. They can't win by weakly catering to MAGA voters.
My vision is that of a real left-wing party, with a populist messaging on universal healthcare, high taxes on the ultra-wealthy, more redistribution, pro-union policies, etc. All those subjects poll incredibly well with Americans.
There is no future for this country if we continue shifting both parties right-ward.
I feel like we're both losing time. Do you have any closing words on this?
> Well excuse me for failing to show kindness to the most bigoted and hateful beings on the planet.
Except... They're not? I've seen more hatred and bigoted behavior directed at Musk by the Democratic party in general than I've seen directed at any minority group by Republicans of any flavor (to pick two common examples of hate in today's politics). I agree that there's been a lot of hate from the latter, but it does not compare in scale and general "acceptability" to the hateful rhetoric I see thrown about on a daily basis by Democratic leaders in the most mainstream of places.
Maybe you "only hate the most bigoted ones", but I suspect that's just a rationalization on your part? I suspect every person I see this hateful rhetoric from would say the same thing about "only hating those who deserve it": but the scope and scale of actual hateful rhetoric tells me that's just rationalizing and posturing. Many Democrats are quite gleeful when they spew their hatred, and there's are not nearly enough Democrats speaking out about it.
> Seemed to work well enough for the republicans.
And yet they also came up with a very detailed plan of action and are currently executing on it. So they clearly are doing more than "just" complaining how bad things were under Democrats.
The Republicans' victory in this past election should be a searing indictment of Democrats' perceived ability to execute.
> You're a fool if you really believe they will stop at only illegal residents. In fact, go read the news right now. They also deport legal residents now.
This is wild speculation and the exact kind of rhetoric that does you no favors. I've seen a couple accounts that this has happened in isolated incidents, but certainly nothing that rises to the level that you're claiming here.
As much as it sucks, I would expect any deportation program to mistakenly deport a few people it shouldn't, no matter how carefully they identify individuals.
Maybe I'm a "fool" for believing it's a baseline error rate thing, but I would certainly be a fool if I believed every person who was as convinced of malfeasance as you seem to be! Every situation over the past few years that could be plausibly extrapolated to "ending democracy" has been by Democrats, regardless of how feasible that outcome actually is... So perhaps I now carry more skepticism of those kinds of hyperbolic claims than I should.
> It already did.
It didn't, though. Some aid programs were immediately exempted from the EO, and more exemptions have been added over time.
So, no. You're factually incorrect
> It is illegal, go read what lawyers are saying. Trump does not hold absolute power (yet), we don't live in a monarchy (yet). He is supposed to abide by the law but doesn't. Which is why I am concerned. I feel like talking to a wall here.
I've seen a lot of ink spilled by lawyers about what's "illegal" over my lifetime, and more often than not the courts do not agree with them. You can find a lawyer willing to make a case that anything is illegal, and everyone has one they're ready to trot out to question the legality of their opponents' actions.
As such, I've put a lot less weight on the authority of those statements.
I agree that some of the things the current administration is doing could be illegal, and I agree with some of the rationale behind why some lawyers are saying it is illegal. However, I'm not convinced it is illegal, due to the poor predictive power of such blanket announcements--especially when they're being made in such an information-poor environment.
Being concerned is fine. I'm concerned, too. Categorically declaring the actions are "definitely illegal" based on the words of some lawyers' motivated reasoning? Probably foolish.
> We do agree on the basic issue, but I think our conclusions are completely opposite. You seem to advocate for the democrat becoming some sort of republicans-lite. This won't help anyone, not even themselves. They can't win by weakly catering to MAGA voters.
No, I'm saying Democrats should cater to the moderates, and stop giving their most hateful and extreme members the spotlight all the damn time. Democrats' recent approach has spent far more time and energy on efforts which only benefit (much less affect) some of it's most marginal populations, which has left their much larger, more moderate Democrats out in the cold.
This is not a strategy to double down on, and yet it is what they're doing. This is just plain stupid, and as a "more moderate" Democrat, feels a little demeaning.
> My vision is that of a real left-wing party, with a populist messaging on universal healthcare, high taxes on the ultra-wealthy, more redistribution, pro-union policies, etc. All those subjects poll incredibly well with Americans.
I don't think all those things poll well, though? Universal healthcare certainly does, but pro-union policies? Higher taxes on the wealthy? I don't think either of these things has clear majority support.
Personally, I'm not even convinced that unions are a net good, given how prone to exploitation they can be. I mean, just look at the recent dock worker strike, where one of the major reasons for the strike was to protest automation. Automation! Our ports need more automation, and more automation would be a net good for anyone who depends on those ports--and yet this is being obstructed by the existing unions, whose continued existence apparently depends on blocking progress. And the Democratic party supports this! Anyway, this is a whole tangent.
> There is no future for this country if we continue shifting both parties right-ward.
I whole-heartedly agree, but there is also no future for this country if the Democratic response to Republicans' victory is to just ratchet up the rhetoric and hate.
> I feel like we're both losing time. Do you have any closing words on this?
Not really anything I haven't already said, I guess. I think you're being unhelpful to the cause you claim to champion by being hateful and spiteful, but I don't think I'm going to change your mind about the effectiveness of that approach. I'm saddened that so many Democrats so readily embrace hatred when things don't go their way. I think such an approach is transparently self-defeating, yet feel like I'm relatively alone in that belief.
I'm embarrassed by current Democratic leadership, and yet as someone who disagrees with the vocal minority of the party on a lot of nuance, I'm utterly disincentivized to throw my hat into the ring. I've seen how easy it is for the current leadership to manufacture large amounts of hate for people they're opposed to, and have absolutely seen that weaponized against "insider threats".
The problem there isn't the Democratic leadership's willingness to heap hate on anyone they see as a threat--it's the regular "rank and file" like yourself who take up that hate, and gleefully and righteously spread it around. You've normalized hate, and that's just sad.
