but is only capable of being realized as broad anti-Trump sentiment?
Partisanship in the US could be something other than anti-Trump sentiment. There’s no logical necessity for it to be that, after all. It just isn’t actually separate from anti-Trump sentiment. (Outside the lizardman constant.)
Surely you understand the difference between an argument being difficult to challenge for social reasons and that argument being convincing, right?
I have no idea which argument you’re referring to.
if people shouldn’t be allowed to argue that Trump is genuinely exceptionally bad regardless of its truth value, then you’re also not allowed to argue that those people are overreacting regardless of it’s truth value.
First of all, you are demanding that you can attack all you want, but nobody gets to defend. No. This is like the difference between initiation of force and self-defense. If you’re going to argue that Trump is uniquely bad to the point where norms can be violated to tell everyone how bad he is, then everyone else gets to say that you are overreacting. You started it.
Second, my point is “you shouldn’t post about it here regardless of whether you’re overreacting.” It doesn’t matter how genuinely bad Trump is; you (and the OPs) shouldn’t be posting about him either way.
Partisanship in the US could be something other than anti-Trump sentiment. There’s no logical necessity for it to be that, after all. It just isn’t actually separate from anti-Trump sentiment. (Outside the lizardman constant.)
Anti-Obama sentiment was not partisan? Anti-Biden sentiment is not? Anti-Zohran sentiment is not? Anti-ICE sentiment is not? Anti-DEI sentiment is not? Anti-Somali sentiment is not? Antisemitism is not? Do you actually believe this?
I have no idea which argument you’re referring to.
The paragraph beginning “of course it’s increased partisanship” was my main target here.
First of all, you are demanding that you can attack all you want, but nobody gets to defend. No. This is like the difference between initiation of force and self-defense. If you’re going to argue that Trump is uniquely bad to the point where norms can be violated to tell everyone how bad he is, then everyone else gets to say that you are overreacting. You started it.
Of course, I did not start it. (Indeed you’ll notice that I’ve been extraordinarily careful not to make any claims like this in our discussion, even though I think they can be justified, because I respect your desire to keep those discussions off of LW. EDIT: To clarify I’ve stated my position, what I mean is that I haven’t argued for it or tried to provide any reason to believe that I’m correct.) I challenged you on what you claim is your point, you decided proactively to jump down from the meta to the object level at that point. But someone somewhere did this, so you’re allowed in “self-defense” to make this pivot when talking to me. I wonder if you’ve thought about the bad incentives this behavior produces? Or is that the sort of thing only your ideological opponents are supposed to concern themselves with?
Second, my point is “you shouldn’t post about it here regardless of whether you’re overreacting.” It doesn’t matter how genuinely bad Trump is; you (and the OPs) shouldn’t be posting about him either way.
I have been trying to get you to argue for this, but you’ve refused three times now! Do you actually believe it to be true that, entirely regardless of how bad they actually are, nobody should ever talk about political figures on LW? Like, if Satan himself were president of the United States and was killing a million people per day, eliciting celebration from his supporters, would you still think discussion was not justified on the grounds that it’s political? If so I’d like you to defend that belief rather than just stating it, as I am now asking you to do for the fourth time. If not, I’d like you to explain what criteria you’re using to decide whether discussion of political figures is acceptable (of course you don’t have to draw hard-and-fast lines, but at least tell me what the relevant methods of evaluation are), and admit that deciding whether norm-breaking is justified will require at least a bit of discussion of object-level truths.
It is literally partisan, but it was nowhere near the same degree of being partisan that’s involved here.
I wonder if you’ve thought about the bad incentives this behavior produces?
The incentives that being able to respond to political rants create are that such rants become less useful (since they don’t go unopposed) and people would be less likely to make them. I find these incentives acceptable.
Like, if Satan himself were president of the United States and was killing a million people per day, eliciting celebration from his supporters, would you still think discussion was not justified on the grounds that it’s political?
Thousands of people are being killed in Sudan—certainly more than Trump has killed—and we’ve managed to go without LW being full of discussion about it. So yes.
Partisanship in the US could be something other than anti-Trump sentiment. There’s no logical necessity for it to be that, after all. It just isn’t actually separate from anti-Trump sentiment. (Outside the lizardman constant.)
I have no idea which argument you’re referring to.
First of all, you are demanding that you can attack all you want, but nobody gets to defend. No. This is like the difference between initiation of force and self-defense. If you’re going to argue that Trump is uniquely bad to the point where norms can be violated to tell everyone how bad he is, then everyone else gets to say that you are overreacting. You started it.
Second, my point is “you shouldn’t post about it here regardless of whether you’re overreacting.” It doesn’t matter how genuinely bad Trump is; you (and the OPs) shouldn’t be posting about him either way.
Anti-Obama sentiment was not partisan? Anti-Biden sentiment is not? Anti-Zohran sentiment is not? Anti-ICE sentiment is not? Anti-DEI sentiment is not? Anti-Somali sentiment is not? Antisemitism is not? Do you actually believe this?
The paragraph beginning “of course it’s increased partisanship” was my main target here.
Of course, I did not start it. (Indeed you’ll notice that I’ve been extraordinarily careful not to make any claims like this in our discussion, even though I think they can be justified, because I respect your desire to keep those discussions off of LW. EDIT: To clarify I’ve stated my position, what I mean is that I haven’t argued for it or tried to provide any reason to believe that I’m correct.) I challenged you on what you claim is your point, you decided proactively to jump down from the meta to the object level at that point. But someone somewhere did this, so you’re allowed in “self-defense” to make this pivot when talking to me. I wonder if you’ve thought about the bad incentives this behavior produces? Or is that the sort of thing only your ideological opponents are supposed to concern themselves with?
I have been trying to get you to argue for this, but you’ve refused three times now! Do you actually believe it to be true that, entirely regardless of how bad they actually are, nobody should ever talk about political figures on LW? Like, if Satan himself were president of the United States and was killing a million people per day, eliciting celebration from his supporters, would you still think discussion was not justified on the grounds that it’s political? If so I’d like you to defend that belief rather than just stating it, as I am now asking you to do for the fourth time. If not, I’d like you to explain what criteria you’re using to decide whether discussion of political figures is acceptable (of course you don’t have to draw hard-and-fast lines, but at least tell me what the relevant methods of evaluation are), and admit that deciding whether norm-breaking is justified will require at least a bit of discussion of object-level truths.
It is literally partisan, but it was nowhere near the same degree of being partisan that’s involved here.
The incentives that being able to respond to political rants create are that such rants become less useful (since they don’t go unopposed) and people would be less likely to make them. I find these incentives acceptable.
Thousands of people are being killed in Sudan—certainly more than Trump has killed—and we’ve managed to go without LW being full of discussion about it. So yes.