Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
He didn’t, not in the way Mathgod is positioning it.
Both sides DO run campaigns based on fear, that’s a “both sides” that’s true, so the hypocrisy is either side (or a supporter of either side) positioning themselves against a fear-based campaign.
If Side A says “Trans people are a danger to society, they must be stopped! We will stop it, vote for us!”
And Side B says “Campaigning on fear is ridiculous and I am against it. And also, climate change is a serious threat to our world and must be stopped! We will stop it, vote for us!”
Side B is a hypocrite. It doesn’t matter that Side B’s concern is valid and side A’s isn’t, because the hypocrisy comes from the approach, not the content.
You can’t be against “fear mongering” as a concept while ringing alarm bells (fear mongering) about climate change and fascism.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Good God. Fine.
In post 18127, FlameOn noted that far right politicians campaign on fear. In response, I said, that it's not just right wingers that do it, and even the democrats are campaigning on fear (i.e., fear that there will be a national abortion ban or that democratic freedoms and voting rights will be eroded or removed). It's just that in this particular case, they're right to promote those fears. In MOST elections - that is, not ones that involve a candidate who actively cozies up to dictators while selling out to people who write documents like Project 2025 - the people campaigning based on fear will still say the fears they're exploiting are justified warnings, such that it's really just a matter of perspective whether someone is stoking fear or "pointing out a real danger".
Everyone always thinks their side is "pointing out a real danger". In 2012, people suggested Romney wanted to turn the USA into a theocracy - that was a talking point. That was not a real danger. The McCain campaign suggested that Obama would turn the IRS into a massive wealth re-distribution agency. That was not a real danger. Usually, the "you should be afraid of what the other guys will do" arguments are over the top and not real.
This time they're real. Trump really will do this stuff, or more accurately, will allow it to happen.
Hopefully that helps.
|
Genuinely thanks both of you for responding. The reason I pressed it, and it ended up being where mathgod went as well, is how we can distinguish between legitimate fears and just plain fear mongering. It seems like the point you are making is that legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder. But like you mention, there are times like now where the fear seems to be substantiated. It would be nice if the rhetoric was toned down so it didn't seem like both sides are always crying wolf. Then if they used it as a campaign issue we would know its authentic. But that will never happen unfortunately.
With the specifics of your examples, the one thing you mention from the left is Romney and the US becoming a theocracy. With how the last decade has played out and the continued rising influence of christian nationalism, can you really even say that was fear mongering?