Archived copies of the article: ghostarchive.org archive.today web.archive.org
About the only way we’re going to actually have a democracy is if they consistently lose elections. That’s going to mean volunteering, donating, and actually turning out to vote
Republicans already tried to end democracy when they tried to stop the transfer of power through violence in the last election.
Now they’re just coming out and saying it “we’re terrorists” and “we’ll end democracy”
This guy: “they’re being sarcastic”.
Bush V. Gore
Poll taxes.
Well he clearly is being sarcastic though. Frankly this whole thread is an affront towards the concept of language comprehension.
“Don the Magic Cloak of Plausible Deniability and come with us!”
Pretending it’s a joke is literally their tactic.
Read the wider context.
They need to dress what they’re very serious about as sarcasm because saying it seriously is a crime.
Delivering something in a sarcastic affect doesn’t necessarily make it a joke if the context doesn’t support it.
There’s nothing funny about calling insurrectionists “martyrs”, having a written plan about how they’ll gut the government, seeing how they behave in states where they have complete control where they have actually gutted the possibility of anyone else coming to power.
None of that supports this as a joke.
GP didn’t say these people or this speaker aren’t trying to destroy democracy. GP said they were being sarcastic in this specific video timestamp with the “ending democracy” quote and the context around it.
But nobody in this thread has doubted that the Republicans are anti-democratic in general.
Well did you actually look at the context in the video? Because if you don’t see that he is being sarcastic there then, no offence, you have no idea what sarcasm is. Or you are hugging your confirmation bias like your life depends on it, which to be fair it actually might. The speech in its entirety is clearly a fascist screed, but that doesn’t mean the beginning of it isn’t sarcastic. And obviously so at that.
Yes, context matters. On that we agree. And unless you think he is actually proposing to “flood the nation with millions of invaders [sic] who vote the way we want” then he was being fucking sarcastic there.
That is not what I mean when I say he wasn’t being sarcastic. I understand that the joke is he said “this is my plan”, then listed a bunch of things the Democrats did, including when he listed immigration, and then the punchline is the Democrats did those things and have already destroyed democracy. What I mean is that he and MAGA supporters really believe that immigration is the Democrats fault. And that he thinks immigration poisons the blood of our country even though the US is a nation of immigrants and in fact immigration is a net benefit.
When he says, to paraphrase, “I want to destroy democracy” but says it in a sarcastic way, I mean he’s not being sarcastic. He really wants to destroy democracy. He describes destroying democracy in the second part of his CPAC speech.
That is irrelevant.
Also irrelevant.
There are, by definition, two conditions to be met for his statement to be sarcastic.
ironicsatirical? Yes he does, he is throwing a statement made about him back at the Democrats.It is entirely possible for him to want to destroy democracy and still say it in a sarcastic way at the same time. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
Plus, as we have established down-thread, you seem to agree that he doesn’t believe he wants to destroy democracy, because he has a twisted notion of what democracy means.
I don’t understand why that is so hard to grasp for people in this thread.
Edit: a word.
I recommend a descriptive approach for definitions rather than a prescriptive approach. Rather than using the dictionary as a kind of set of physical laws for what words mean, prescriptive, it’s relevant to consider how people use words, descriptive. I agree his definition of democracy is twisted. But when he gives that definition for the word democracy, he means democracy and more specifically US democracy.
I think your argument is missing the forest for the trees here, because your argument’s logic seems to be he isn’t using the definition of the word properly therefore it isn’t possible for him to mean that he wants to destroy that thing. As long as the definition of a word is understood by other people, then a speaker can assign a word whatever definition they want.
When people say he’s just being sarcastic, they mean he doesn’t really mean what he says. He really wants to destroy democracy. So by that definition of sarcastic, the one people are using, he is not being sarcastic. edit: typos
Yes, I am aware of the two basic schools of thought in linguistics, thank you. When people use words as defined in the dictionary then it is still descriptive though.
No, I’m saying that is entirely unrelated to the question of him being sarcastic or not.
He doesn’t mean it, according to his own way of thinking at least. By our way of thinking he wants to destroy democracy, but not by his. That is why I’m saying he is being sarcastic.
Apart from my disagreement on this point voiced above, in that case people should change the dictionary. They haven’t. If everybody uses their own definition then language becomes useless.
Edit: typo
If you mean people can use words as defined in dictionaries and those dictionaries are still descriptive then I agree.
A dictionary that uses a descriptive approach very well might. It doesn’t matter if the dictionaries haven’t. As long as people understand each other when they speak it’s fine. People can understand meanings of words even if they aren’t all enumerated in the dictionary. This is self evident from observing any number of conversations on or off line. The one example that comes to mind is the use of the word literally. People used it incorrectly, for when they meant figuratively. The response people gave was not, I do not understand what you said. They said you didn’t mean literally you meant figuratively.
And on Merriam-Webster’s website, they did add a new definition to the literally based on its new usage.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
The comment I replied to originally was using the word sarcasm to mean he doesn’t mean what he says. So that’s the definition I used in my reply. I understood what the writer of the commenter said without needing to refer to the dictionary first. As I said, his tone of voice certainly sounds sarcastic and seems to meet the definitions you listed. This isn’t particular relevant though. Fascists use the cloak of
possiblyplausible deniability to mask what they say. A sarcastic tone of voice is one such tool.I would say his characterization of US democracy, all the things he said the Democrats are doing in his joke, is his way of explaining why he doesn’t value US democracy and therefore is why he is ok with destroying it. Based on the fact he doesn’t like immigration or mail in voting, what he doesn’t like about US democracy is that his minority doesn’t fully control it. In his mind, both of those things deplete his minority’s power. His speech does not indicate he values some other definition of democracy. When he says new American republic he means christofascist dictatorship. He knowingly wants to replace US democracy with a christofascist dictatorship, because then his minority will have total control over American life.
So nowhere in his line of thinking is he being sarcastic, as in he doesn’t really mean it, because he doesn’t value majority rule. He wants minority rule. He does not believe democracy means or is minority rule. Instead he believes democracy means and is majority rule and believes that is a bad thing. When the only real difference between our definitions is that we believe majority rule is good and he believes it’s bad, we’re all not only talking about the same thing, but we also all know the thing he wants to destroy is US democracy. edit: typo
The facts don’t matter, only the narrative.
Every accusation is a confession.
I see, so the other day when you were accusing me of being disingenuous and splitting hairs, you were confessing that you are disingenuous and split hairs.
While it was obvious, I have to say I’m surprised to hear you admit it.
Oh wow. So you’re going to keep trolling me huh. Wow, big surprise. Don’t let me stop you.
Trolling you? You responded to me not the other way around. Lol
I guess this is another one of those “every accusation is a confession” things.
It’s the standard playing ignorant routine. Does it get old?
You’re the one, by your own logic, confessing that you’re playing ignorant by accusing me of it.
So, I don’t know, you tell me.
Although, this is especially funny in light of our discussion yesterday where you also claimed that ad hominems undercut the point.