916
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2024
916 points (98.0% liked)
politics
19241 readers
1767 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
“Don the Magic Cloak of Plausible Deniability and come with us!”
Pretending it's a joke is literally their tactic.
Read the wider context.
They need to dress what they're very serious about as sarcasm because saying it seriously is a crime.
Delivering something in a sarcastic affect doesn't necessarily make it a joke if the context doesn't support it.
There's nothing funny about calling insurrectionists "martyrs", having a written plan about how they'll gut the government, seeing how they behave in states where they have complete control where they have actually gutted the possibility of anyone else coming to power.
None of that supports this as a joke.
GP didn't say these people or this speaker aren't trying to destroy democracy. GP said they were being sarcastic in this specific video timestamp with the "ending democracy" quote and the context around it.
But nobody in this thread has doubted that the Republicans are anti-democratic in general.
Well did you actually look at the context in the video? Because if you don't see that he is being sarcastic there then, no offence, you have no idea what sarcasm is. Or you are hugging your confirmation bias like your life depends on it, which to be fair it actually might. The speech in its entirety is clearly a fascist screed, but that doesn't mean the beginning of it isn't sarcastic. And obviously so at that.
Yes, context matters. On that we agree. And unless you think he is actually proposing to "flood the nation with millions of invaders [sic] who vote the way we want" then he was being fucking sarcastic there.
That is not what I mean when I say he wasn't being sarcastic. I understand that the joke is he said "this is my plan", then listed a bunch of things the Democrats did, including when he listed immigration, and then the punchline is the Democrats did those things and have already destroyed democracy. What I mean is that he and MAGA supporters really believe that immigration is the Democrats fault. And that he thinks immigration poisons the blood of our country even though the US is a nation of immigrants and in fact immigration is a net benefit.
When he says, to paraphrase, "I want to destroy democracy" but says it in a sarcastic way, I mean he's not being sarcastic. He really wants to destroy democracy. He describes destroying democracy in the second part of his CPAC speech.
That is irrelevant.
Also irrelevant.
There are, by definition, two conditions to be met for his statement to be sarcastic.
It is entirely possible for him to want to destroy democracy and still say it in a sarcastic way at the same time. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
Plus, as we have established down-thread, you seem to agree that he doesn't believe he wants to destroy democracy, because he has a twisted notion of what democracy means.
I don't understand why that is so hard to grasp for people in this thread.
Edit: a word.
I recommend a descriptive approach for definitions rather than a prescriptive approach. Rather than using the dictionary as a kind of set of physical laws for what words mean, prescriptive, it's relevant to consider how people use words, descriptive. I agree his definition of democracy is twisted. But when he gives that definition for the word democracy, he means democracy and more specifically US democracy.
I think your argument is missing the forest for the trees here, because your argument's logic seems to be he isn't using the definition of the word properly therefore it isn't possible for him to mean that he wants to destroy that thing. As long as the definition of a word is understood by other people, then a speaker can assign a word whatever definition they want.
When people say he's just being sarcastic, they mean he doesn't really mean what he says. He really wants to destroy democracy. So by that definition of sarcastic, the one people are using, he is not being sarcastic. edit: typos
Yes, I am aware of the two basic schools of thought in linguistics, thank you. When people use words as defined in the dictionary then it is still descriptive though.
No, I'm saying that is entirely unrelated to the question of him being sarcastic or not.
He doesn't mean it, according to his own way of thinking at least. By our way of thinking he wants to destroy democracy, but not by his. That is why I'm saying he is being sarcastic.
Apart from my disagreement on this point voiced above, in that case people should change the dictionary. They haven't. If everybody uses their own definition then language becomes useless.
Edit: typo
If you mean people can use words as defined in dictionaries and those dictionaries are still descriptive then I agree.
A dictionary that uses a descriptive approach very well might. It doesn't matter if the dictionaries haven't. As long as people understand each other when they speak it's fine. People can understand meanings of words even if they aren't all enumerated in the dictionary. This is self evident from observing any number of conversations on or off line. The one example that comes to mind is the use of the word literally. People used it incorrectly, for when they meant figuratively. The response people gave was not, I do not understand what you said. They said you didn't mean literally you meant figuratively.
And on Merriam-Webster's website, they did add a new definition to the literally based on its new usage.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
The comment I replied to originally was using the word sarcasm to mean he doesn't mean what he says. So that's the definition I used in my reply. I understood what the writer of the commenter said without needing to refer to the dictionary first. As I said, his tone of voice certainly sounds sarcastic and seems to meet the definitions you listed. This isn't particular relevant though. Fascists use the cloak of ~~possibly~~ plausible deniability to mask what they say. A sarcastic tone of voice is one such tool.
I would say his characterization of US democracy, all the things he said the Democrats are doing in his joke, is his way of explaining why he doesn't value US democracy and therefore is why he is ok with destroying it. Based on the fact he doesn't like immigration or mail in voting, what he doesn't like about US democracy is that his minority doesn't fully control it. In his mind, both of those things deplete his minority's power. His speech does not indicate he values some other definition of democracy. When he says new American republic he means christofascist dictatorship. He knowingly wants to replace US democracy with a christofascist dictatorship, because then his minority will have total control over American life.
So nowhere in his line of thinking is he being sarcastic, as in he doesn't really mean it, because he doesn't value majority rule. He wants minority rule. He does not believe democracy means or is minority rule. Instead he believes democracy means and is majority rule and believes that is a bad thing. When the only real difference between our definitions is that we believe majority rule is good and he believes it's bad, we're all not only talking about the same thing, but we also all know the thing he wants to destroy is US democracy. edit: typo
You are flipping definitions here. Originally you said by a descriptive definition it's sarcasm when you do not mean it (which aligns with the dictionary definition by the way, so I'm still confused why you made that point at all). He says he doesn't mean it, in his speech, verbatim. Your or my interpretation of his other actions and politics doesn't matter to the question of whether he is being sarcastic. I'm done with this conversation now, good bye.
I've been consistent with this definition in my argument.
You argument seemed to be about relying on dictionary definitions to determine what fascists are saying in their speeches. This choice lead you argument to the wrong conclusion.
I've watched the CPAC speech three times now. Where does he say this?
I think our interpretations could not be more important. Democracy and people's lives depend on everyone's ability to recognize fascism. A key part of that is analyzing the speaker's actions and political views to determine what he actually wants and believes.
Ok, fuck. Against my better judgement and because I'm sufficiently drunk, here I go again... Drunk text. You were warned.
Let me start off with saying that I empathise with your point. I get what you are saying ultimately, I think. And if you see that on your Lemmy instance, I'm not the one downvoting you. I think your heart is in the right place.
But I really don't see your point about the sarcasm question. It's not a question. It's there. By definition. Why is this the hill you want to die on?
I mean the rest of his speech is just crazy over crazy. The MAGAdonians? I mean come on it's a goldmine for proving the fuck out of him being a fascist, but you are going for the one trap he lays you, where he is obviously being sarcastic. This is not going to dismantle his larger argument to anyone who might even vaguely relate to it, on the contrary. You need to do better.
But you asked, so here I go again:
He starts out with saying "most dangerous speech to democracy" in a mocking voice, then seriously "not just drain the swamp burn it to the ground". The whole thing drips of sarcasm from the start. Money quotes right here.
"Shining city on a hill, drain swamp, bla bla".
Then he lists three sources who he apparently suggests mis-cited him, Jeff Reid, Morning Joe, Mark Hamil. (?) He is mocking their accusations that he would "end democracy". "We have to end it, that's what the media told me". This couldn't be more clearly sarcastic.
Then he starts to explain his plan to end democracy, which is a list of things Republicans have accused the Democrats of doing that they consider an attack on democracy. The stolen election check-list™ I have documented in another comment. Again clearly mocking the "other side", hence sarcastic.
He ends this part of the speech with saying:
Again, clearly telling people that he is being sarcastic, outright, into their faces. He does not mean "real democracy™", he means "fake democracy™".
It's there. And I don't get why you are trying to prove that it's not, when there is so much bullshit in it that you could go for instead.
Anyway, you will not find any luck in insisting somebody isn't sarcastic when they most clearly are. This will convince nobody. You need to appeal to their better senses, like "real" Christianity, the American Dream, Human rights, or whatever it takes for them.
I mean even he cleverly does this in his speech, extending an open hand to anybody and everybody, even the Swifties? Like they have a somewhat coherent narrative that people will follow, and you have to admit this guy is not bad at making propaganda for it. And IMHO you are falling for his taunt here. He challenged the public to quote him on this, because he could say it was sarcastic. Because he is.
I'm mean don't ask me how to stop the fucking fascist in the end. Some relatively influential German politician just proposed what essentially amounts to forced labour for all immigrants for several months to horrendous "wages", like <1$/h wages. In fucking Germany! The gall! So yeah, I'm not really sure what to do about it either.
If this is what drinking and texting produces, then more people on social media should be drinking.
This is his shallow lie, where he mischaracterizes democracy and says it authoritarian. In usual Republican double speak he makes his authoritarian takeover sound like a movement for ensuring freedoms when it most assuredly will take them away. He really believes that the Democrats have done all of the things or that the things they've actually done are harmful as listed in his joke. The whole joke boils down to, "no you", with an alternate universe worth of lies.
It would be sarcastic if he wanted to preserve democracy. He wants to destroy democracy. So it's not sarcastic. His goal is a christofascist dictatorship.
I can only hope you're wrong. There is really nothing else to say to people at this point except that the Republicans mean it when they say want to destroy democracy. If they win in November, the Republicans are planning on dismantling our democracy by replacing nonpartisan members of the executive branch with partisan yes men, as detailed in Project 2025. They may not hold elections at all, but if they do, there won't be many people to run against them since they are undoubtedly going to jail political opponents. The amount of harm Trump can do in the next four years really isn't worth thinking about because there isn't a hard limit. He wants to use the Insurrection Act to declare martial law and deploy the military in American cities on day 1. The only way to stop these fascists is to out vote them, until someone can figure out a vaccine for self-destructive ideologies. edit: typos