Thank you for your thoughtful reply; I don’t disagree with anything you wrote. But throwing out obviously slanderous falsehoods about “30% of Americans are fine with raping children” isn’t the winning posture some apparently think it is. They seem to think all that is know today was known in November 2024, and it was not, especially not to his followers.
I have added in another comment how sexual assault survivors crossed the aisle to pass EFTA, without which no one would be seeing the files now. Some of Epstein’s survivors are themselves Trump voters: they voted for him because they believed the lies he would do something about it. To assert that they too are “fine with raping children” as children that were raped themselves is dishonorable and beyond revolting, but even when pointed out there are folks still saying it, like doubling down on it will make it more defensible.
And to do so in a community that is built around discussing real crimes against real people, some of whom are here, and for whom there is already a trigger warning in the sidebar, is conscienceless and vile.
Someone else here asked me what I was defending, as though all this comes down to an election choice based on today’s wisdom for yesterday’s ballot and that’s all that should matter to me. I answered them.
Perhaps that reply will help you understand better as well.
To be clear, I don’t give a shit who voted for or against Trump at this point. He’s there. I’m doing my part (in ways I will not discuss online) and I assume others are as well. That’s not for anyone else to question, especially if they’re not even here. In the meantime, do not take real survivors’ pain and torment and use it as a dishonest label and emotive cudgel with which to make cheap ass political points out of a suffering non-survivors cannot possibly understand. That is reprehensible, regardless of where you or anyone else stands on the political spectrum.
Yes, I agree with you: inaccurate generalizations don’t help anyone, and insults even less so - quite the contrary. That’s exactly the kind of mindless nonsense that has helped demagogues like Drump succeed. It only serves to distract attention from the real culprits.
The only thing I wanted to say with my comment is that I can halfway understand why people are frustrated and allow themselves to be led to make such bogus statements. I think you’re absolutely right that it makes much more sense to look forward rather than backward, to put an end to political infighting and to join forces to fight the real enemies, because they are essentially the ones who benefit from discord - it’s their strategy.
The GOP’s approach is a good example of this: since the Tea Party movement under Sarah Palin and then MAGA, this party has developed into an anti-democratic juggernaut: instead of discussion and compromise, it now insists solely on its inhumane hardliner positions, slander, disinformation, etc. - not talking to each other rationally, but merely spreading hatred and hostility.
Unfortunately, this model has also been adopted by right-wing extremist parties in my home country, and they too are unfortunately very successful with it.
Democracy simply cannot function this way, because it requires the exchange of rational arguments and a willingness to cooperate for the benefit of all. With hatred and slander, on the other hand, it is impossible to shape democratic processes for the good of all.
Therefore, baseless accusations and insults are extremely counterproductive.
It is much worse than that. It is a direct form of horizontal hostility, and specifically designed to prevent people from confronting the real enemy:
Horizontal Hostility. Having failed to fight against those in power, people take out their anger and frustrations on each other. It is a lot easier to fight the person sitting next to you than someone in a distant house of parliament or corporate headquarters. And if victory continues to elude them, it’s because their would-be allies are reactionaries, or vanguardists, or dangerous anarchists and vandals. People who are willing to fight back often have more fiery and combative personalities, so such conflict is easy to provoke.
The term “horizontal hostility” was coined by Black intersectionalist feminist and civil rights organizer Florynce Kennedy; she called it “misdirected anger that rightly should be focused on the external causes of oppression.”
Ann Hansen explained to me that this phenomenon is so destructive that intelligence agencies “like CSIS and the RCMP don’t have to spend one cent in our communities, because people spend all their time attacking each other over the little things instead of talking about strategy.”
Michael Albert, writing about what happens to people who encounter a movement for the first time, asks: “Does this person merge into a growing community of people, feel more secure and appreciated, feel a growing sense of personal worth and of contribution to something valuable, and enjoy a sense of accomplishment? . . . Or does this person meet a lot of other people who continually question her motives and behavior, making her feel insecure and constantly criticized?”
So even though I deeply appreciate your position for myself, while you are busy lending these folks your gentle understanding, I will offer my congratulations on the own-goal to all the people taking cheap and dishonest shots at Americans who care enough to address it and fix it, survivors included, because we’re the only ones who can.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply; I don’t disagree with anything you wrote. But throwing out obviously slanderous falsehoods about “30% of Americans are fine with raping children” isn’t the winning posture some apparently think it is. They seem to think all that is know today was known in November 2024, and it was not, especially not to his followers.
I have added in another comment how sexual assault survivors crossed the aisle to pass EFTA, without which no one would be seeing the files now. Some of Epstein’s survivors are themselves Trump voters: they voted for him because they believed the lies he would do something about it. To assert that they too are “fine with raping children” as children that were raped themselves is dishonorable and beyond revolting, but even when pointed out there are folks still saying it, like doubling down on it will make it more defensible.
And to do so in a community that is built around discussing real crimes against real people, some of whom are here, and for whom there is already a trigger warning in the sidebar, is conscienceless and vile.
Someone else here asked me what I was defending, as though all this comes down to an election choice based on today’s wisdom for yesterday’s ballot and that’s all that should matter to me. I answered them.
Perhaps that reply will help you understand better as well.
To be clear, I don’t give a shit who voted for or against Trump at this point. He’s there. I’m doing my part (in ways I will not discuss online) and I assume others are as well. That’s not for anyone else to question, especially if they’re not even here. In the meantime, do not take real survivors’ pain and torment and use it as a dishonest label and emotive cudgel with which to make cheap ass political points out of a suffering non-survivors cannot possibly understand. That is reprehensible, regardless of where you or anyone else stands on the political spectrum.
Yes, I agree with you: inaccurate generalizations don’t help anyone, and insults even less so - quite the contrary. That’s exactly the kind of mindless nonsense that has helped demagogues like Drump succeed. It only serves to distract attention from the real culprits.
The only thing I wanted to say with my comment is that I can halfway understand why people are frustrated and allow themselves to be led to make such bogus statements. I think you’re absolutely right that it makes much more sense to look forward rather than backward, to put an end to political infighting and to join forces to fight the real enemies, because they are essentially the ones who benefit from discord - it’s their strategy.
The GOP’s approach is a good example of this: since the Tea Party movement under Sarah Palin and then MAGA, this party has developed into an anti-democratic juggernaut: instead of discussion and compromise, it now insists solely on its inhumane hardliner positions, slander, disinformation, etc. - not talking to each other rationally, but merely spreading hatred and hostility.
Unfortunately, this model has also been adopted by right-wing extremist parties in my home country, and they too are unfortunately very successful with it.
Democracy simply cannot function this way, because it requires the exchange of rational arguments and a willingness to cooperate for the benefit of all. With hatred and slander, on the other hand, it is impossible to shape democratic processes for the good of all.
Therefore, baseless accusations and insults are extremely counterproductive.
It is much worse than that. It is a direct form of horizontal hostility, and specifically designed to prevent people from confronting the real enemy:
So even though I deeply appreciate your position for myself, while you are busy lending these folks your gentle understanding, I will offer my congratulations on the own-goal to all the people taking cheap and dishonest shots at Americans who care enough to address it and fix it, survivors included, because we’re the only ones who can.