I've been involved in the debate about Trump's authoritarianism/fascism from the beginning, and have held consistently to one side of the argument. (Against.) But it's been the weirdest experience in that four years later, I still am not sure what is driving the debate. It's
-
-
That's not true. Some of the people who argue most forcefully for the authoritarianism thesis will tell you, in other contexts, that the good intentions of a politician don't matter at all.
-
I think the dividing line is between those who believe in the durability of American institutions and those who believe they are fundamentally fragile or rotten. That question doesn't break left/liberal.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
It’s based on what kind of historical period people imagine themselves to be inhabiting.
-
Precisely the problem: Intent and imagination are highly subjective and do not lend itself to dispassionate criticism and analysis.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Kant-ish Deontology vs consequentialism is the best I can figure after four years People are really invested in not calling it a coup/fascism until after it has happened, even if the rudimentary intent can easily be qualified I get the argument for eg genocide, but not this
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.