Trump era: Fascist dawn, or road to liberation?

[Laura]

Trump didn't look too comfortable giving that back peddling statement. His body language and way of talking gave the impression of him not feeling as self confident as he usually is. Then there was this weird moment of the lights going off...maybe just a glitch, or a warning?

Looks like the more sane republicans (Jordan, Gowdy etc.) with Trump have chosen (or are being forced to) to not deny the Russian meddling - completely denying that would be too much for the public. It remains to be seen if this strategy will succeed. Looking with a magnifying glass, some sort of 'Russian meddling' did of course take place in the form of a few FB posts and tweets. But applying just a tiny bit of common sense, this is in no way that sort of meddling what the usual suspects are presenting it to be.

Good post. You should share your thoughts on Twitter and FB.

 

[aragorn]

Good post. You should share your thoughts on Twitter and FB.

Posted now on Twitter. I'm too much of a coward for posting it on FB; I have too many colleagues from work as friends, and as people have lost their sense of reality long ago (ever since Trump got elected everyone at my working place have been against him), I'm not ready to take the heat from them. So, I'm being strategic, but at the same time I fell like I'm not standing up for what I believe to be (more) true. Actually, it's quite unbelievable what things have come to: you are fearing for the 'lynch mob' for sharing what's on your mind. Does anyone else have the same problem – fear for the consequences of speaking up?

 

[fabric]

Orwell talked about the distortion of words and we see that too in other areas, but this is a whole different level already; it's interpreting the oposite of what an event actually means. Dialog and a peaceful relationship between "partners" (or even "good competitors"), instead of war against an "evil enemy", is seen as a declaration or war to the values that are so dear to Americans, yet that is precisely what those values (say, freedom, justice, healthy competition, human rights, etc.) stand for...

Orwellian indeed. The terms have been twisted around so completely that not only ‘war is peace’ but the inverse, ‘peace is war’ is also true for them. It’s quite evident that there is what amounts to a ‘war against peace’ by the Intel / MSM arm of the establishment structure. The prospect of any sort of alliance with Russia, (who does a much better job at demonstrating real justice, healthy competition, human rights, cooperation and so forth) is a huge thorn in their side in this era of information warfare and a direct threat to the way they’ve always done things and mainly why they’ve got all their media on board to shift public opinion into thinking this is a bad thing... because it is - for them! Russia has to be the enemy as they represent almost the exact opposite of what the power structure is trying to achieve in their pursuit of hegemony and a society to support their pathology. Not so for the rest of the world who actually wants to see US and Russia get along and haven’t been ponerized to the degree the US has.

When the habits of subconscious selection and substitution of thought-data spread to the macrosocial level, a society tends to develop contempt for factual criticism and to humiliate anyone sounding an alarm. Contempt is also shown for other nations which have maintained normal thought-patterns and for their opinions. Egotistic thought-terrorization is accomplished by the society itself and its processes of conversive thinking. This obviates the need for censorship of the press, theater, or broadcasting, as a pathologically hypersensitive censor lives within the citizens themselves.

[...]

The way I see it, all the propaganda and noise by that minority serves the purpose or imprinting a particular view deep in their minds by repetition and scandals (which trigger people), even if they just go on with their lives and their daily issues without stopping to think about what they see in the news/social media

A while back Caitlin Johnstone wrote:

The elites who manipulate your government are more vulnerable now than ever before and they know it — the solution just isn’t in politics, it’s in media. What Americans lack in voting power, they make up for in the fact that their ability to network and share information has reached completely unprecedented heights, which means that the old propaganda systems which have been used to lull Americans into accepting the establishment narrative are wielding less and less influence. The internet has the potential to initiate a total shift in public perspective.

I think that’s partly true considering the desperation in their attempts however they still wield a lot of influence as illustrated by the summit. It’s through the media that they are able to garner the support they need for imperialist plans that really have no benefit to the public and so have to launch massive disinformation campaigns in order to get people on board with it, each one more ridiculous than the next. While consciously some may reject it, by not taking a stance against it and passively submitting to it, it will have a subconscious effect. Later down the road that person will adopt the mainstream narrative and not even realize that they have thinking it was their own sentiment. It’s similar to seeing an advertisement on Coca-Cola and buying one later thinking you choose it of your own free will but really it was because you saw the ad earlier. Although, I believe it’s that potential to shift public perspective they are so desperate to control because of the normalizing effect that countering their narrative (or let’s say the pathology of the elite) can have on people. It can work both ways and though it is greatly disproportionate in terms of "big lie vs truth" out there, the counter-narrative carries more force as it can often be supported by facts and evidence.

Pathocracy has other internal reasons for pursuing expansionism through the use of all means possible. As long as that “other” world governed by the systems of normal man exists, it inducts into the non-pathological majority a certain sense of direction. The non-pathological majority of the country’s population will never stop dreaming of the reinstatement of the normal man’s system in any possible form. This majority will never stop watching other countries, waiting for the opportune moment; its attention and power must therefore be distracted from this purpose, and the masses must be “educated” and channeled in the direction of imperialist strivings. This goal must be pursued doggedly so that everyone knows what is being fought for and in whose name harsh discipline and poverty must be endured. The latter factor – creating conditions of poverty and hardship - effectively limits the possibility of “subversive” activities on the part of the society of normal people.

That’s we’re seeing today, clearer now more than ever. In terms of imprinting, below is relevant and something I think the elite are also well aware of. Repeat the lie enough times it ‘becomes true’ or the bigger the lie the easier to believe or something along those lines. They know Haidt’s elephant is in control and what’s what they aim for - keeping people stuck in system 1 thinking where facts don't matter.

[...] Unconscious psychological processes outstrip conscious reasoning, both in time and in scope, which makes many psychological phenomena possible: including those generally described as conversive, such as subconscious blocking out of conclusions, the selection, and, also, substitution of seemingly uncomfortable premises.

We speak of blocking out conclusions if the inferential process was proper in principle and has almost arrived at a conclusion and final comprehension within the act of internal projection, but becomes stymied by a preceding directive from the subconscious, which considers it inexpedient or disturbing. This is primitive prevention of personality disintegration, which may seem advantageous; however, it also prevents all the advantages which could be derived from consciously elaborated conclusion and reintegration. A conclusion thus rejected remains in our subconscious and in a more unconscious way causes the next blocking and selection of this kind. This can be extremely harmful, progressively enslaving a person to his own subconscious, and is often accompanied by a feeling of tension and bitterness.

[...]

Trump's was a lame excuse, of course, which is a sign of how much pressure they are putting on him to backtrack on that 'being nice to Russia' business. That's too bad.

They sure have him in a very tight spot, and seeing the media reaction over it and his backtracking made me wonder: why was Trump even allowed to meet with Putin one-on-one in the first place? I think it's already been established that he doesn't get to call the shots, so either all this was intended to find more fuel for their campaign against him (esp. since the whole Mueller thing is falling apart) and essentially a setup (which he seemed to be aware of going into it) or it will turn out to be another miscalculation on their part. It's hard to say at this point but I think they took a gamble by letting them speak one-to-one, and maybe a sign of their desperation (or hubris). The scary part is that there this a chance it will work, so as mentioned earlier, a splitting of realities - one where they are not successful where more of the man-behind-the-curtain is revealed or one where Hillary is president in 2020 (I doubt they'll make the same mistake twice).

 

[luc]

The comments on this one just made me go

https://twitter.com/x/status/1019329670217691136

It fits with fabric's quotes from Political Ponerology and the observations about some kind of reality split... In one reality, Russia's MOD put out a friendly press release, emphasizing that the ministry is ready to continue the general process of dialog and the understandings reached during the summit (about Syria etc.). It also attached a press photo for extra niceness as is common practice for press releases. They also put it up on fb and tweetet the fb post - basic diplomacy and press work. In the other reality however, people scream "how dare they troll us" and things like this:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1019349810099388417

https://twitter.com/x/status/1019565630897426433

https://twitter.com/x/status/1019565594788679680

https://twitter.com/x/status/1019370250884743168

They haven't even bothered to look at the press release or listen to the press conference. Mush for brains! It's fascinating and chilling to witness.

 

[Keit]

Posted now on Twitter. I'm too much of a coward for posting it on FB; I have too many colleagues from work as friends, and as people have lost their sense of reality long ago (ever since Trump got elected everyone at my working place have been against him), I'm not ready to take the heat from them. So, I'm being strategic, but at the same time I fell like I'm not standing up for what I believe to be (more) true. Actually, it's quite unbelievable what things have come to: you are fearing for the 'lynch mob' for sharing what's on your mind. Does anyone else have the same problem – fear for the consequences of speaking up?

I don't think that you are being a coward. Despite what Jordan Peterson advises (always tell the truth), it shouldn't be done without prior thinking. In our age when one twitter post can ruin person's life, it is best to think twice before going on a futile crusade online, because it won't be more effective than fighting the windmills. There IS of course a good point and reason to make a stand and voice your opinion, but it should be done in the way that the benefits of your fight will be much greater than the possible consequences.

For example, when I still lived in Israel I was very careful about voicing my real opinions. That's why my cousin was shocked to see the posts I shared on FB when I left the country. She and other friends were surprised to see it because I wasn't that outwardly honest and vocal with them before. Sure, it may seem as cowardice, and it would surely be better to be honest. But then, being a vocal pro-Palestinian supporter carries various negative consequences in Israel, including losing a job, so it would be kind of stupid not to be careful about it. Unless, of course , one has a good support group around them that allows them to be fully themselves, so to say.

 

[luc]

Posted now on Twitter. I'm too much of a coward for posting it on FB; I have too many colleagues from work as friends, and as people have lost their sense of reality long ago (ever since Trump got elected everyone at my working place have been against him), I'm not ready to take the heat from them. So, I'm being strategic, but at the same time I fell like I'm not standing up for what I believe to be (more) true. Actually, it's quite unbelievable what things have come to: you are fearing for the 'lynch mob' for sharing what's on your mind. Does anyone else have the same problem – fear for the consequences of speaking up?

Overall, I agree with Keit, but it can be tricky. Sometimes, "strategic enclosure" can indeed be an excuse for cowardice, at least I sometimes feel that way personally. I always was and still am absolutely terrified about posting stuff on facebook, sometimes I literally shake after posting something. But it's worth the effort, at least for me, because it really builds new neural pathways that help reduce anxiety and neuroticism and such things seem to make me stronger in other areas of life as well. Plus, if you post something on facebook, you have "skin in the game", which makes you think extra hard about things you write and share - you don't just randomly repost stuff or rant stupidly etc. It can clear up your thinking process and makes you more careful with your words - at least in my experience.

Now that doesn't mean being stupid of course. Some things that helped me were a) putting work contacts, "unfriendly family" etc. on a list that I almost always exclude when I post b) starting step by step with less controversial stuff from mainstream sources that are still very relevant and truthful (there's plenty of those nowadays, like those truthful stories that appear once in the NYT or Guardian and then are forgotten and drowned in propaganda). And when the inevitable happens and someone starts ranting on your wall, keeping your calm is good behavioral therapy ;) I also blocked a few people who always went into fights whenever I posted something, and I just didn't want to bother with it anymore.

Interestingly, I got some great comments and feedback from people I never suspected. A friend even called me once because he wanted to hear my opinion on some political happening! And some are too afraid to like and comment, but they like the mainstream/uncontroversial stuff I post even though we have nothing to do with each other, so I strongly suspect they are following closely. FWIW

 

[genero81]

Interestingly, I got some great comments and feedback from people I never suspected. A friend even called me once because he wanted to hear my opinion on some political happening! And some are too afraid to like and comment, but they like the mainstream/uncontroversial stuff I post even though we have nothing to do with each other, so I strongly suspect they are following closely. FWIW

I think that's probably true. I'm hoping there are those from the 'silent majority' watching and reading and hopefully seeing that there's at least one person they know who's willing to stand up to the absurdities, so that one day they might do likewise.

 

[angelburst29]

2018-07-16 - Trump, Putin begin bilateral talks in Helsinki (video)
Trump, Putin begin bilateral talks in Helsinki (video)

Full transcript:

Vladimir Putin, Russian President (Russian): “Mr. President, I am very glad to meet you here, in the hospitable country of Finland, in Helsinki. For the previous months we have been maintaining contacts, we talked on phone, met several times at the venues of different international events. Of course, it is a high time to talk thoroughly about our bilateral relationship and the world’s pressing issues. There are a lot of them that makes us pay our attention to them. Thank you so much.”

Donald Trump, President of the United States of America: “First of all Mr President I’d like to congratulate you on a really great World Cup. One of the best ever from what everybody tells me and also for your team, itself, doing so well. I watched quite a bit and in the United States we call it soccer and I watched quite a bit of it and I watched the entire final and the semi-finals and they were really spectacular games, but it was beautifully done so congratulations on that. Most importantly we have a lot of good things to talk about … we have discussions on everything from trade to military, to missiles, to nuclear, to China, we’ll be talking a little bit about China – our mutual friend President Xi. I think we have great opportunities together as two countries that frankly we have not been getting along very well for the last number of years. I’ve been here not too long but it is getting close to two years, but I think we will end up having an extraordinary relationship. I’ve been saying, and I’m sure you’ve heard, over the years … that getting along with Russia is a good thing not a bad thing. I really think the world wants to see us get along. We are the two great nuclear powers. We have 90% of the nuclear – and that’s not a good thing it’s a bad thing. I think we can hopefully do something about that because it is not a positive force it is a negative force so we’ll be talking about that among other things. And with that the world awaits and I look forward to our personal discussion which I think begins now and then we are going to meet our whole team. You have quite a few representatives as I do. We all have a lot of questions and hopefully, we will come up with answers most importantly. It is great to be with you. Thank you everybody.”


16 July، 2018 - President Putin: Moscow and Washington can cooperate to resolve Crisis in Syria
President Putin: Moscow and Washington can cooperate to resolve crisis in Syria – Syrian Arab News Agency

Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Moscow and Washington can cooperate to resolve crisis in Syria and help the Syrian displaced return to their home.

As for Syria, reaching the goal of restoration of peace and accord in this country could be an example of successful collaboration. Undoubtedly, Russia and the United States could become leaders in this regard and work together on resolving the humanitarian crisis, helping displaced people return home,” Putin said at a press conference with his US counterpart , Donald Trump in Helsinki on Monday.

He said that after the defeat of terrorists in the south-west of Syria, the situation in Golan “must be brought in full compliance with the 1974 disengagement of forces agreement and that has been affirmed by the US president , which is also Russia’s firm stance towards establishing a just and lasting peace based on UN Security Council resolutions.

Meanwhile, Russian President’s special representative for Syria Alexander Lavrentiev said the targets of Russia and US are identical regarding political settlement for the crisis in Syria.

RT quoted Lavrentiev as saying to journalists on the sidelines of the summit that the most important thing for Russia is the stability of the situation in Syria, the cessation of hostilities, and the arrangement of the political process in the country.

He said that the Iranian troops are not present in the de-escalation zone in southern Syria, and the presence of the Iranian advisers in the country came upon a request of the Syrian government.


2018-07-17 - Netanyahu thanks Putin, Trump for statements in support of Israel (video)
Netanyahu thanks Putin, Trump for statements in support of Israel (video)

Full transcript:

Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel (Hebrew): “I praise the things I heard in the press conference with President Trump and President Putin. First, I greatly appreciate the deep commitment to the security of Israel that Trump expressed at the press conference, and I can say that the alliance between Israel and the US has never been stronger. Second, I greatly appreciate the things that President Putin said about the need to honour the 1974 separation agreements between Syria and Israel, just as I appreciate the security cooperation between the militaries of Russia and Israel, and I must say that on all of these issues I spoke in great detail with President Trump and President Putin in recent days. These are very important matters to the security of our state.”


July 18, 2018 - Putin Envoy Visits Tehran to Brief Iranian Leadership about Helsinki Summit
Putin Envoy Visits Tehran to Brief Iranian Leadership about Helsinki Summit

Russia’s special presidential envoy for Syria Alexander Lavrentiev is planned to visit Iran later on Wednesday.

Lavrentiev will fly to Tehran in order to make the Iranian leaders become aware of the newly-held one-on-one meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart Donald Trump, Russia’s television news channel reported.

Putin and Trump held a meeting in Helsinki on Monday (July 16), and Lavrentiev was a member of Russia’s negotiating delegation to the Finnish capital city, RBK reported.

Iran’s presence in Syria has been among the issues discussed by Putin and Trump in Helsinki, the Russian news channel broadcast.

Hossein Jaberi Ansari, an Iranian senior diplomat recently said the advisory presence of Iran in Syria depends on the agreements between the governments of the two countries.


18 July 2018 - Russian Ambassador Affirms No ‘Secret Deals’ Struck between Putin, Trump in Helsinki
Russian Ambassador Affirms No ‘Secret Deals’ Struck between Putin, Trump in Helsinki

MOSCOW - No secret agreements were reached at the bilateral US-Russian presidential summit in the Finnish capital of Helsinki, Russian President Vladimir Putin clarified everything openly, Russian Ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov told reporters at a press briefing in the Russian Foreign Ministry on Wednesday.
"Russian President Vladimir Putin told [reporters] everything. There were no secret agreements," he affirmed. "They [agreements] were announced clearly. There were talks about Syria and Ukraine, experts were instructed to work on that area."

"I liked the meeting very much, the conversation was substantive and serious," the ambassador noted. "I saw US President Donald Trump listening to the Russian president. That doesn’t mean, however, that President Trump agreed with everything. A huge rift in understanding bilateral and global issues has become a bit smaller."

Antonov also pointed out that the questions asked by US reporters at the summit were unconstructive and aimed at "creating an uncomfortable situation for Donald Trump."

The diplomat noted it was necessary to wait for "the toxic dust of Russia bashing in Washington" to settle. "Let’s see to what extent the US will be ready to implement the verbal understandings reached in Helsinki," he noted.

On Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart Donald Trump held their first full-fledged meeting in Helsinki. The two heads of state held a one-on-one meeting that lasted for slightlyover two hours. Later, delegation members joined the two presidents for a larger working luncheon. The Russian side was comprised of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Presidential Spokesman Dmitry Peskov and Presidential Aide Yuri Ushakov. The US delegation included Secretary of State Michael Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton. The expanded bilateral session lasted about two hours.


July 18, 2018 - Trump Made 8 Requests to Meet Rouhani in New York
Trump Made 8 Requests to Meet Rouhani in New York

US President Donald Trump had requested a meeting with President Rouhani ‘eight times’ on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in September, according to Rouhani’s chief of staff Mahmoud Vaezi.

“During Rouhani’s last visit to New York for the UN General Assembly session, Trump asked the Iranian delegation eight times to have a meeting with the president,” Mahmoud Vaezi told reporters after a cabinet meeting on Wednesday.

Back in October, Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Bahram Ghasemi confirmed speculations on Trump’s request for a meeting with Rouhani on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, but added that the request was rebuffed by the Iranian president.

“We have a transparent policy and clear position with regard to our relations with the US,” Vaezi added.

“The characteristic of this Establishment and [Iranian] people is that they will not yield to pressure. Trump should know that Iran and its people are different from North Korea and its people.”

He went on to add, “since 40 years ago, the US has been threatening Iran for its Islamic principles and independence, also because the US used to have a hold on Iran’s resources in the past.”

“The difference between Trump and others is that some issues that he raises is because he is not a politician,” he said. “We have no doubt that they have set up a psychological war room at the US Treasury and Department of State, but we are talking about a sophisticated nation here,” Vaezi said, according to Mehr news agency.

“Our people may have some demands from the government, but when it comes to US to decide for them, it is only natural that the people will make their own decisions free of [US] influence,” he added.

 

[Ca.]

On Watch: Strzok -- "No One Left to Lie to" -- & Will Obama Be Deposed?

Judicial Watch Streamed live 16 hours ago / 17:17
In this episode of "On Watch," JW Director of Investigations & Research Chris Farrell dives into the ongoing saga of FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, lovers embroiled in the controversial Clinton email and Trump/Russia collusion investigations.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1019761251453370369

https://twitter.com/x/status/1019749657566642176

https://twitter.com/x/status/1019736083700035590

Snip:
As I wrote recently for Strategic Culture Foundation:
“Trump’s opponents both from members of the Deep State and media as well as those citizens supporting ‘The Resistance’ are so unhinged they have become indistinguishable from Colonel Jack T. Ripper from Dr. Strangelove.

I swear I saw a tweet from Obama Administration CIA Director John Brennan discussing bodily fluids, but I may have misread it.
They have nurtured their own angst and denial at having lost an election and erected a bogeyman in Vladimir Putin as the only way in which the disgusting Trump could possibly have won.”​

 

[happyliza]

Posted now on Twitter. I'm too much of a coward for posting it on FB; I have too many colleagues from work as friends, and as people have lost their sense of reality long ago (ever since Trump got elected everyone at my working place have been against him), I'm not ready to take the heat from them. So, I'm being strategic, but at the same time I fell like I'm not standing up for what I believe to be (more) true. Actually, it's quite unbelievable what things have come to: you are fearing for the 'lynch mob' for sharing what's on your mind. Does anyone else have the same problem – fear for the consequences of speaking up?

There is definitely Strategic Enclosure to consider. I just finished Defying Hitler - so there is defo that fear of speaking up very well explained in that memoir. But also I still think the Law of 3 is also necessary to be taken into consideration - (situation/context and individual cases). Sure doesn't make it easy.
Personally -for our soul's sake - I think it is the most difficult decision there is. Not the 'decision' per se, but timing, fallout, repercussions and those affected.
'Reality' is purely a matter of knowledge versus ignorance, lack of responsibility/laziness to learn.
You have brought up a very timely 'existential' type question that is very likely to affect all of us here.
A similar one was 'What/Do we tell our children? IMHO

 

[bjorb]

I'm too much of a coward for posting it on FB; I have too many colleagues from work as friends, and as people have lost their sense of reality long ago (ever since Trump got elected everyone at my working place have been against him), I'm not ready to take the heat from them. So, I'm being strategic, but at the same time I fell like I'm not standing up for what I believe to be (more) true. A

Besides the good advice already shared and I might repeat some of them in certain respects.

Do you jeopardize your job if you speak out? Will it put you or others in danger? I don’t know, just asking. If it isn’t, why not give it a go.

If your co-workers are your friends, like you say they are, what kind of friend are you if you don’t at least whenever a good opportunity arises try to plant a seed, share a more objective view or stand up for what is right. With strategic enclose and decently applied of course, though sometimes, we’ve to a bit daring. OSIT.

Just remember that the lies they feed cause suffering. And that’s a horrible thing, not only for others, but also for themselves.

Just share what needs to be said as clear as possible and try to keep it with that if possible. Maybe they get it, maybe they don't, perhaps they need some time. But you did all you could. What else can we do.

Besides, sharing the truth however controversial it might be can give others the courage to the same. Someone has to be the first.

I think Aragon that it’s difficult to be in peace with yourself if you can’t for reasons attached to thinking errors or self importance speak out whenever the opportunity calls for it.

And if they resent you for that. It’s not the end of the world. Just the start of a soul that tries to release itself from a self inflicted mental prison that is needy of being seen in a ‘positive’ light.

Having said that. I think It normal to be sensitive to what others might think or not. Because it's painful to see others fall into Entropy.
But that also means that there is Joy in seeing others learn, that there is Joy in seeing Creativity flourish.

Does anyone else have the same problem – fear for the consequences of speaking up?

If I'm well informed about the subject at hand and well prepared to speak out. I don't believe I really am, but it sure took a lot of practise. Be sure that you are using (or at least for the most part) the right intent/energy to share a more objective view. Speak out because the truth is the only antidote against suffering. Say it, because it's the right thing to do.

- Hope that makes sense.

 

[luc]

If I'm well informed about the subject at hand and well prepared to speak out. I don't believe I really am, but it sure took a lot of practise. Be sure that you are using (or at least for the most part) the right intent/energy to share a more objective view. Speak out because the truth is the only antidote against suffering. Say it, because it's the right thing to do.

- Hope that makes sense.

I agree. What helps me overcome my fear in that regard is usually anger - when I'm really mad at the evilness and absurdity of the world. It kind of makes sense because anger's whole point is to overcome fear. I think motivation is important: do we post stuff to look smart or to prove us right? Or do we post because we feel rightful anger or our soul just cries out and it's the right thing to do?

Again, by all means, we should all be careful, strategic and choose our words and battles carefully. But IMO just swallowing your anger isn't good in the long term either. Sometimes I think about it this way: once I'm on my deathbed and look back on my life, and ask myself why I haven't done more and why I haven't stood up for truth, and all I can say is "I was afraid that some guy is offended and writes a nasty comment on my facebook wall" - how would that look like? Would I be happy?

 

[aragorn]

Thanks for the comments. I've now posted an in-round-bout-way pro-Trump post on FB, and also a comment on a clearly anti-Trump thread that one of my old schoolmates has started. I'm curious to see the reactions.

I need to clarify, that I haven't previously avoided posting 'fringe' topics on FB (like about 9/11, Israel, Russia, vaccines, ponerology). However, this whole anti-Trump movement is so widely spread and accepted by the majority, that it has made me careful about the subject. I'm gonna do some 'probing' posts and see how it goes.

ADDED: and I'm not afraid of nasty comments. The thing I'm mostly concerned regarding posting, is that I gain a reputation that will spread to the ears of my children's schoolmates, and that they as a result get bullied because their father is a 'Nazi', or something. We live in a small town, and word spreads pretty fast around here.

 

[Laura]

Thanks for the comments. I've now posted an in-round-bout-way pro-Trump post on FB, and also a comment on a clearly anti-Trump thread that one of my old schoolmates has started. I'm curious to see the reactions.

I need to clarify, that I haven't previously avoided posting 'fringe' topics on FB (like about 9/11, Israel, Russia, vaccines, ponerology). However, this whole anti-Trump movement is so widely spread and accepted by the majority, that it has made me careful about the subject. I'm gonna do some 'probing' posts and see how it goes.

ADDED: and I'm not afraid of nasty comments. The thing I'm mostly concerned regarding posting, is that I gain a reputation that will spread to the ears of my children's schoolmates, and that they as a result get bullied because their father is a 'Nazi', or something. We live in a small town, and word spreads pretty fast around here.

Well, luc has written a great "Liberals as Fascists" article that you could share around!!!

 

[meta-agnostic]

I have a social media dilemma that is somewhat tangential to what aragorn is describing. I've still never joined facebook and feel some vindication with the way things have turned out, although I see how it can be useful. With twitter, maybe it's easier to tolerate the nonsense because I usually keep the axiom "everyone on twitter is crazy" in the back my mind whenever I'm on it. When I joined twitter almost 6 years ago, I followed a bunch of celebrities using a sort of blasé rational like, "oh, I liked their work in this or that thing, I guess I'll see what they have to say." For a while there would be some good tidbits mixed with inanities, but over the shift of the last few years a lot of them have become completely unhinged. As I was undergoing my own shift in how to view politics, I could have just unfollowed the ones I disagreed with. But in addition to that attitude being part of the whole problem with everything, it's also useful to keep some of those crazies on your radar as an indication of "ok, that's what those type of people are currently saying."

My dilemma is, if I'm not going to unfollow them, how does one decide when one of these people has reached a point where they deserve to be called out? I've done it before and been blocked, but at this point it's almost like, what's the point? If I can think of something pithy enough in the moment to respond to what they are saying, they might quote-tweet me with some complete non sequitur insult, sic their army of mindless followers on me before blocking me, and have my mentions polluted for who knows how long with drivel. But, some fence-sitters in the audience might see it and it might help change a few minds. Or, wait and observe a bit longer and as more things continue to be revealed, it's possible that if celebrity X is not a monster and just delusional like so many others who've been duped, there may be a time when a well-placed comment could have more of an effect. The personal stakes aren't quite as high as what aragorn is talking about, but I agree that what we do or don't do in these settings can have an effect.