Zach, Thank you for this “thought-provoking” post.
Finding my way through the sea of Political Opinions seems to be a never-ending journey.
There are times when my head hurts just trying to select from the endless perspectives written on the subject of our Presidential Candidates for our upcoming Presidential Elections.
I was always taught to seek the Truth of a matter with honesty and integrity and to “Give Credit Where Credit Is Due”, but in today’s political environment it can seem like an impossible task to discern the “Reality” (if that even exists during intense Political Battles 😵💫).
That is why I want to thank you for your attempts here to show that things aren’t always as someone might want to believe them to be (like it or not). I can see how, on a very human level, “Confirmation Bias” is a tempting thing to fall into.
But I’ve found that I’d rather do my due diligence (to the best of my ability) to see “the good, the bad and the ugly” rather than finding that my biases blinded me making me regretful after all is said an done.
Let’s not sane wash this man. He’s unhinged. “These are bad people. We have a lot of bad people. But when you look at ‘Shifty Schiff’ and some of the others, yeah, they are, to me, the enemy from within,” and he’s willing to use military means to destroy his enemies. This is just so abundantly clear.
I don't think it is clear at all. The fact that me and many others think this is taking things way out of context should give you pause about its obviousness IMO. He was specifically asked about "chaos" related to him being elected, and that was the context of using the "military" language (and he even qualified that as "if necessary").
I agree Trump says many bad and hateful and divisive and dangerous things; we aren't in disagreement there.
What are your thoughts on the "blood bath" language? Do you see that taken out of context?
Well with everything coming out from his former COS and others from his administration about you know using military on protesters, ya it’s clear. Maybe in this specific case of the Fox interview he wasn’t talking about using the military on Adam and Nancy but if you zoom out and look big picture, he’s gotten way more authoritarian in his thinking.
And I do think the blood bath language most definitely taken out of context.
At the very least, please address Zachary's question in the "context" he's referring to.
It's very clear that, in this heartbreaking political environment, both sides are more than happy to disparage those they don't agree with, especially given a platform to spew the hatred and disdain.
I have seen a tremendous amount of INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY, especially from people who have the "credentials" that should indicate an expectation of intelligence. It's just a reminder that "book knowledge" doesn't translate to Moral Character and the ability to treat human beings with dignity and respect. We should be able to expect so much better from decent human beings.
Thanks, Zachary, as always for your insightful, rational and wonderfully articulated essays and posts here. Thanks also to everyone who commented. The way I see it, Zachary’s posts, and this one in peculiar, are about how divisive language and rhetoric divide us (the people, the voters, the public) and stoke more ire and self righteousness in ourselves, independent from the candidates and the truth or lies spread about them. It’s almost immaterial what you accept as signal or noise at this precipice we’re standing on. Believing that one group of voters (not the candidates or their team) is actually insane and the other isn’t tears us apart in ways that are hard, or maybe impossible, to repair once it’s done. I’m likely not being very articulate - I apologize. But I wanted to jump in to say this is how I’m thinking about this all.
Thank you for the kind words, Mollye. I need all the moral support I can get :)
One thing that really stood out to me, which I probably would have added more about if I could rewrite the video I made, was the ease with which we can disagree. So many people had different takes on this, takes that didn't align by political views/alliances (e.g., also saw pro-Trump people criticizing Trump for this). This emphasizes the need to be humble about our takes and question our certainty; it emphasizes the need to recognize that people can come to very different conclusions. When people speak as if their take/view is the 100% obvious/clear one, that will amplify divides; when people add contempt/anger ("you're an idiot for not seeing this as I see it), it will amplify divides even more.
Thanks for your reply! I’ve been admiring your work for a while. I agree with what you wrote in your addendum here too. I’ll also check out the Middle East piece you shared - thank you. I’m in need of sound thinking and feeling about all that. I wonder if you’d like a piece I wrote earlier in the election season. I think I got too self conscious to post it…I’ll look it over and see if I have the courage to share it now, or if it still makes sense. I took a cue from you when writing it re: defusing anger. Thanks for everything!
I'd say that's unrelated to what we're talking about, though. The discussion is about taking things he says (and others say) in the worst-possible way. The perception that you and others have that "he is a fascist" is what explains taking the worst-possible interpretations; it is not a reason to do it. In the same way that conservative-side views that "Democrats are bad" will cause them to filter for worst-possible interpretations of things they do. This is leaving aside the more reasonable aspects of how one builds one's case; it's just pointing out that we are prone to overly negative/pessimistic interpretations once we have those views. We will feel in the right for pulling together various pieces of evidence that support our view and seeing them as "all connected" even when they are not and when others think we're being biased when we do that. Pessimism breeds pessimism; the cycle of conflict, and I work on helping people see that it's important to work against that.
Thank you for sharing your reasoned "thinking" on this, Zachary.
I think that one of my biggest frustrations is to hear and see comments that appear to be, INTELLECTUALLY DISHONESTY.
When I hear/read a person who, to all appearances, seems to be intelligent only to have them ignore something that is not to their advantage or that they would rather not address with total honesty, there is a measure of respect I lose and begin to think of them as not being a reliable resource.
Humility is very challenging for us as human beings, especially when there are those who want to convince others that they are "right". For some, in their mind, this makes them a "better" human being. Being "right" doesn't add character or value, seeking "Truth" (whatever the situation) as the higher goal, does.
Zach, Thank you for this “thought-provoking” post.
Finding my way through the sea of Political Opinions seems to be a never-ending journey.
There are times when my head hurts just trying to select from the endless perspectives written on the subject of our Presidential Candidates for our upcoming Presidential Elections.
I was always taught to seek the Truth of a matter with honesty and integrity and to “Give Credit Where Credit Is Due”, but in today’s political environment it can seem like an impossible task to discern the “Reality” (if that even exists during intense Political Battles 😵💫).
That is why I want to thank you for your attempts here to show that things aren’t always as someone might want to believe them to be (like it or not). I can see how, on a very human level, “Confirmation Bias” is a tempting thing to fall into.
But I’ve found that I’d rather do my due diligence (to the best of my ability) to see “the good, the bad and the ugly” rather than finding that my biases blinded me making me regretful after all is said an done.
Thanks, Rita.
Let’s not sane wash this man. He’s unhinged. “These are bad people. We have a lot of bad people. But when you look at ‘Shifty Schiff’ and some of the others, yeah, they are, to me, the enemy from within,” and he’s willing to use military means to destroy his enemies. This is just so abundantly clear.
I don't think it is clear at all. The fact that me and many others think this is taking things way out of context should give you pause about its obviousness IMO. He was specifically asked about "chaos" related to him being elected, and that was the context of using the "military" language (and he even qualified that as "if necessary").
I agree Trump says many bad and hateful and divisive and dangerous things; we aren't in disagreement there.
What are your thoughts on the "blood bath" language? Do you see that taken out of context?
And exactly how would he go about that?
Well with everything coming out from his former COS and others from his administration about you know using military on protesters, ya it’s clear. Maybe in this specific case of the Fox interview he wasn’t talking about using the military on Adam and Nancy but if you zoom out and look big picture, he’s gotten way more authoritarian in his thinking.
And I do think the blood bath language most definitely taken out of context.
At the very least, please address Zachary's question in the "context" he's referring to.
It's very clear that, in this heartbreaking political environment, both sides are more than happy to disparage those they don't agree with, especially given a platform to spew the hatred and disdain.
I have seen a tremendous amount of INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY, especially from people who have the "credentials" that should indicate an expectation of intelligence. It's just a reminder that "book knowledge" doesn't translate to Moral Character and the ability to treat human beings with dignity and respect. We should be able to expect so much better from decent human beings.
Thanks, Zachary, as always for your insightful, rational and wonderfully articulated essays and posts here. Thanks also to everyone who commented. The way I see it, Zachary’s posts, and this one in peculiar, are about how divisive language and rhetoric divide us (the people, the voters, the public) and stoke more ire and self righteousness in ourselves, independent from the candidates and the truth or lies spread about them. It’s almost immaterial what you accept as signal or noise at this precipice we’re standing on. Believing that one group of voters (not the candidates or their team) is actually insane and the other isn’t tears us apart in ways that are hard, or maybe impossible, to repair once it’s done. I’m likely not being very articulate - I apologize. But I wanted to jump in to say this is how I’m thinking about this all.
Thank you for the kind words, Mollye. I need all the moral support I can get :)
One thing that really stood out to me, which I probably would have added more about if I could rewrite the video I made, was the ease with which we can disagree. So many people had different takes on this, takes that didn't align by political views/alliances (e.g., also saw pro-Trump people criticizing Trump for this). This emphasizes the need to be humble about our takes and question our certainty; it emphasizes the need to recognize that people can come to very different conclusions. When people speak as if their take/view is the 100% obvious/clear one, that will amplify divides; when people add contempt/anger ("you're an idiot for not seeing this as I see it), it will amplify divides even more.
Related to this, you might like this piece I wrote about this aspect of the Middle East conflict and views about it: https://defusingamericananger.substack.com/p/the-ease-with-which-we-can-disagree
Thanks for your reply! I’ve been admiring your work for a while. I agree with what you wrote in your addendum here too. I’ll also check out the Middle East piece you shared - thank you. I’m in need of sound thinking and feeling about all that. I wonder if you’d like a piece I wrote earlier in the election season. I think I got too self conscious to post it…I’ll look it over and see if I have the courage to share it now, or if it still makes sense. I took a cue from you when writing it re: defusing anger. Thanks for everything!
Yeah, love to read it, even if you don't post it. Feel free to email me using the contact form at american-anger.com/contact . Thank you!
Just sent it via your contact page. Please let me know if you got it (Google doc link). Thanks!
https://medium.com/@kylejohnson_40581/the-20-signs-that-trump-is-a-fascist-6eb84922defb
I'd say that's unrelated to what we're talking about, though. The discussion is about taking things he says (and others say) in the worst-possible way. The perception that you and others have that "he is a fascist" is what explains taking the worst-possible interpretations; it is not a reason to do it. In the same way that conservative-side views that "Democrats are bad" will cause them to filter for worst-possible interpretations of things they do. This is leaving aside the more reasonable aspects of how one builds one's case; it's just pointing out that we are prone to overly negative/pessimistic interpretations once we have those views. We will feel in the right for pulling together various pieces of evidence that support our view and seeing them as "all connected" even when they are not and when others think we're being biased when we do that. Pessimism breeds pessimism; the cycle of conflict, and I work on helping people see that it's important to work against that.
Thank you for sharing your reasoned "thinking" on this, Zachary.
I think that one of my biggest frustrations is to hear and see comments that appear to be, INTELLECTUALLY DISHONESTY.
When I hear/read a person who, to all appearances, seems to be intelligent only to have them ignore something that is not to their advantage or that they would rather not address with total honesty, there is a measure of respect I lose and begin to think of them as not being a reliable resource.
Humility is very challenging for us as human beings, especially when there are those who want to convince others that they are "right". For some, in their mind, this makes them a "better" human being. Being "right" doesn't add character or value, seeking "Truth" (whatever the situation) as the higher goal, does.