They say they want Muslims to call out their own, and because Muslims can never do it enough to satisfy them, then by their lights, all Muslims are complicit in the terror wrought by a few.
Ah yes, remember when the word “complicit” touched a nerve and Ivanka began her response, “If what you mean by complicit is...”and then totally redefined the word to convert it from censure to self-complimentary?
“If being complicit is wanting to, is wanting to be a force forgood and to make a positive impact, then I’m complicit.
Apparently, public reaction to Trump proudly calling himself a nationalist has touched a nerve among the base.
To be clear, there should never be an American president who isn’t a nationalist, to the degree that the word means a concentrated interest in the elevation of one’s own country.
Fair enough, but Trump’s actions have only one goal---the elevation of himself. He cares nothing for the country.
Of course, if you define it to mean something akin to Naziism, thenyou’ve skewed the discussion entirely.
If you define it? As if that is not already one of its definitions? It’s Orwellian-speak—“Yes, we know that when you say Trump is a nationalist, you mean something akin to Nazi, but we are going to pretend that definition does not exist so we can call bad, good and wrong, right.”
Nevermind that if a President Clinton had done any of what Trump has done,these same Redstaters would be howling for the impeachment of that evil nationalist, and the GOP would have already complied.
Speaking of definitions, the word radical does not mean terrorist, although some radicals become terrorists. So Redstate again equivocates, “If a radical is a terrorist, then it is ludicrous to claim Trump has radicalized more people than ISIS.”
Don’t confuse the far anti-Trump Left with reason, goober.
Ioffe’s reply:
“ISIS had like 10,000 members. I think the president has far more supporters who espouse an equally hateful ideology.”
Ooookay.
Well, there you have it, folks. I mean, terrorists.
The reason Redstate is mocking Ioffe is because her point is actually pretty strong. In terms of numbers, Trump/GOP has definitely radicalizedmore people than ISIS. If you cannot counter an argument on its merits, you can always resort to mocking.
As an aside, mocking is always red meat for the base, whether the base is the Dem base or the GOP base. Mocking is an intravenous fix of confirmation bias. We here at Dkos should be much more wary of employing it than we are. Mocking only gives support to the notion that both sides are no different.
Too many diarists, even front-pagers, engage in similar propaganda methods, including equivocation (like the kind of redefinition employed by Ivanka) and other logical fallacies, sometimes to create clickbait, sometimes to gratify confirmation bias, sometimes to propagandize the readership. People should be able to come to dKos for education they can trust, and not have to slog their way through propaganda to find it.