In a recent interview with the National Association of Black Journalists’ convention in Chicago, Trump falsely claimed Harris did not lean into her Black identity until it became politically advantageous to do so.
“She was always of Indian heritage and she was only promoting Indian heritage. I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black. And now she wants to be known as Black. So I don’t know. Is she Indian or is she Black? I respect either one, but she obviously doesn’t.” Donald Trump, speaking to the National Association of Black Journalists
Other Republicans, including speaker Mike Johnson, have discouraged their surrogates from using identity as a wedge, from racist attacks, and from using the term “DEI” which implies that minorities are unqualified and were only chosen due to identity, not skills or experience. Meanwhile, or at least in 2021, Republican VP candidate J. D. Vance had this to say:
“We are effectively run in this country … by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made, and so they wanna make the rest of the country miserable, too. It’s just a basic fact. You look at Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez), the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children.” – J.D. Vance
Vance’s comments don’t make much sense given that both Harris & Buttigieg are both parents, raising two children, although these are not their biological children. When pressed to explain his remarks, Vance doubled down, joking that he has “nothing against cats.” It’s a funny line, but it reinforces his disdain for the left’s anti-natalism (in his view at least). He also stated that those with children should get more votes, and elaborated that parents should be able to vote on behalf of their children (not according to the children’s wishes, of course–the parents decide how the votes go). I mean, I certainly disagree with that unless we want to move the voting age down to 10 or something (or whatever age the right now thinks is acceptable for child labor and child brides). This feels like some weird way to game the system, like when people claim 49 dependents to get a better tax return. Did Kramer from Seinfeld come up with this idea or is this just straight up trolling? Given Vance’s enthusiastic conversion to a specific strain of Catholicism, I suspect he’s in earnest at least in principle.
Harris fought back when speaking to the Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority’s Biennial Boule in Houston:
“It was the same old show. The divisiveness and the disrespect. And let me just say, the American people deserve better. We deserve a leader who understands that our differences do not divide us. It is an essential source of our strength.” – Kamala Harris
Of course, the left is not entirely without disrespect in this exchange. The new insult that’s sticking to the right is that they are weird (and I just said it myself in reference to Vance’s proposal about giving parents extra votes). In defense of the use of “weird” to describe their political foes, some journalists are saying it’s a peer-to-peer insult, not punching down, but it also has the potential to deflate a bully. One gay pundit I listened to had a different perspective, though. He didn’t like it at all, even if he agreed with it in substance, having been called “weird” by homophobic peers for expressing himself in a more feminine way or having a voice they deemed not masculine enough. The first guy who coined “weird” in this political exchange is now Harris’ VP pick, Walz, governor of Minnesota. And basically, that’s the only thing I know about him so far.
Weird can be a cutting insult when used by a bully. Or it can be something people embrace, like being quirky or awkward. In a conformist setting, “weird” can also mean being creative or thinking outside the box, as described by those who are more risk-averse. It’s a very old word that’s been used in a lot of different ways, which is one of the things that is hard to pin down right now. It’s like how the economy is good on paper, but it feels bad in practice. And frankly, when it comes to current slang, asking my Millennial and Gen Z kids to define words is so locked into generations that they aren’t even sure about some of the Alpha slang (like “w,” “riz,” and “skibbidy”). I mean I kind of get those terms, but also they are . . . weird. Weird can be as innocuous as “unfamiliar,” or as it originally meant, “fateful” or spooky (see also the “Weird Sisters” from MacBeth). Trust me, though, calling the right weird will probably have a short shelf life, just like the coconut tree thing. There will be twenty new insane things to fill our brains between now and the election. Nothing lasts. 90 days sounds short, but in reality TV, it’s an entire season of scandals, insults, bitch-slaps, and hijinks. Mayhem is the new watchword.
I was listening to a podcast that was talking about how we used to aspire to “tolerance” rather than “respect,” and yet, we are rapidly getting less of both. The difference between the two concepts is that with tolerance, you don’t respect or admire a group, but you are civil and you believe in upholding their basic rights. It’s what people mean when they say they “hate the sin, but love the sinner.” They don’t admire the sinner. They endure having to share the planet with them. This feels, on some level, like what the church preaches with some caveats, though. Basic rights for trans people are new enough that the church is still pretty hostile on that front. Respect is more than civility and tolerance. Respect is when you actually engage with the other group and see their input as valuable, worth hearing, worth including in decision-making that affects them (and everyone). When you see diversity as a strength, that’s respect for differences. When you see diversity as a threat, you might tolerate others (or you might not as we are also seeing), but you don’t listen to them or include them.
For another church-related example, the church tolerates those who have left but talks that call them “lazy learners” or discourage talking to them or listening to their input teaches church members not to respect them.
When people encounter others who disagree with them, they often hold certain assumptions or beliefs about those individuals. Three common beliefs are:
- Ignorance:
- Belief: The person lacks the necessary information or knowledge and would change their mind if they were better informed.
- Implication: This belief suggests that disagreement stems from a lack of understanding or awareness rather than a difference in perspective, experience or values.
- Stupidity:
- Belief: The person is incapable of understanding the issue due to a perceived lack of intelligence or critical thinking ability.
- Implication: This assumption dismisses the other person’s viewpoint as inherently flawed or irrational, often leading to a condescending attitude.
- Malice:
- Belief: The person has a harmful or malicious intent, and their disagreement is driven by bad motives or a desire to cause trouble.
- Implication: This belief attributes a negative character or moral failing to the person, often resulting in distrust and hostility.
These assumptions prevent individuals from genuinely considering the perspectives and experiences of others. They also reinforce our sense of being right because we don’t think we are ignorant, stupid or evil. We think that we are right.
One such logical flaw is something I’ve heard about why someone didn’t get a testimony of the Book of Mormon, even though Moroni promises they will “if they pray with true intent.” Ergo, no answer means they didn’t have true intent, which I guess means they weren’t committed to act on it, or they didn’t really try, or they wanted it to be false (?). That’s a very watered-down version of the “malice” argument to dismiss someone’s input. They weren’t being “true” to the task like me. I’m a good person. They are bad, lazy, biased, etc.
The podcast conversation said that the more you are around those of the “outgroup” the less likely you are to view them with disdain or treat them with disrespect. Isolating oneself to like-minded people is what leads to disrespect. Within the church, this does happen sometimes, and it does vary greatly from family to family. Even the messages from church leaders have differed. Also, both sides are prone to making (even if only to themselves) these three dismissive arguments about those who disagree. For example:
Ignorance. Believers might say “they don’t even read their scriptures” or “they don’t really understand the deep doctrines like I do.” Ex-Mos might say “if they knew about Joseph Smith’s coercion of teen brides, they wouldn’t still believe” or “if they read the actual SEC report like I did, they would leave.”
Stupidity. Both groups might see the others as being too prone to peer pressure, family pressure, or unable to see what seems so obvious to them. Those who feel strongly about authority or expertise might point their rhetorical opponent to “experts” (for TBMs, that might be church leaders or scripture; for exMos that might be historians or critics).
Malice. This sounds like such a strong word, but it’s really just about the person having a moral failing, relative to oneself. Believers might say those who have left “just wanted to sin” or “left the church but can’t leave it alone.” Jesus criticized the Jewish leaders’ performative religiosity, saying “they have their reward.” Some who don’t believe see their families as controlling or patriarchal, unable to love others, judgmental or hypocritical.
There’s a reason that a lot of marriages split over differences in belief. It’s the same thing that leads to most divorces: disdain, contempt or lack of respect. So, how do you combat this? The only way you can: within yourself. If you find yourself thinking someone else is ignorant, stupid or evil, they might be, or they might not be, but believing they are just gets you off the hook for considering that you might be wrong, you might have different values or perspectives, or that things affect people in different ways. Diversity is our strength. It doesn’t need to divide us.
High demand religions go one further in the worthiness game. These three “bad” attributes can’t be ascribed to the church, as the source of salvation, so instead, they must be internalized by the members. Therefore, if you disagree with something the church says, you have been primed to believe that you are ignorant, you are just too stupid to understand, or you are a bad person. I have heard people at church denigrating themselves in this way, especially in Relief Society. Have you heard things like this: “I’m sure I would like the temple if I just understood it like [person in authority] does.” “I should have done my ministering but I just got so caught up in other, worldly things.” “I don’t know enough about DNA or archaeology, but I trust that the Mormons in authority above me know all of that.” Just as these thoughts, when pointed outward, reveal a lack of respect toward others; when pointed inward, they reveal a lack of self-respect. There’s humility, which just means we don’t know everything and we acknowledge that, and there’s self-flagellation. I’ve heard a lot of both in my lifetime in the church.
I don’t like Trump, and I also don’t like Vance, but it would be unfair to marginalize those who vote for him as all being ignorant, stupid or malicious, easily written off. Certainly they don’t see themselves this way. What makes it hard for us to all live together is when we quit respecting other people’s values, experiences, and perspectives. Or when we quit respecting our own values, experiences or perspectives.
“If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s path.” Joseph Campbell
- Did your family of origin tolerate people’s differences or respect them?
- Do you see the church as preaching tolerance, respect, both or neither?
- How have you bridged these divides in your own life? Have you struggled to respect those with whom you disagree? Did you overcome it?
- Have you ever turned these ideas (ignorant, stupid, bad) onto yourself? How did you get past that?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
I don’t see much disrespect in Trump’s comment. He is making an observation based on historical evidence. Even if one argues that Trump is being selective in his choice of evidence, his observation is valid. The observation is that some people are chameleon about their racial identity. In the case of Kamala Harris, the evidence shows that for a period of time it was her Indian heritage that was given public emphasis. If one became aware of Harris during this time one would have the impression that she was Indian, or at least that was her preferred ancestral identity.
Of course there is a political reason for Trump to make this observation. He is hoping to raise doubts, especially among black voters, about Harris’s integrity. Questioning a politician’s integrity and claim to a label or association is a type of political criticism that has been around forever. We see it with a politician’s claim of religion – is the politician really Christian? We see it with a politician’s claim of political advocacy – is the politician really pro-life or pro-choice? Is the politician really pro-second amendment or is their NRA membership just a facade? On this last question, I recall Mitt Romney being questioned in his first presidential campaign about his claims of being a “lifelong hunter” He wasn’t. Romney lied. But Romney felt it necessary to associate himself as a “hunter” in order to prove his commitment for gun rights / NRA.
I notice that the political Left is sensitive about challenges of racial identity the way the political Right is sensitive about challenges of ideological identity (especially religion, abortion & guns). I think this reflects the perception of each political tribe on the importance of that particular identity. Of course, politics being politics, the Left enjoys poking fun at Republican politicians for their ideological insincerity and the Right enjoys poking fun at Democrats for their racial insincerity. Recall the hubbub that happened when Republicans pointed out that Barack Obama’s first book included the claim that Obama was born in Kenya. Oh, the political Right had fun with that. Just as the political Left had fun mocking Romney for claiming to be a lifelong hunter and comparing him to that other famous rabbit hunter, Elmer Fudd.
The insincerity of identity claims is humorously approached by Jerry Seinfeld. In the Yada Yada episode, Jerry’s dentist converts to Judaism. The dentist also becomes a comedian and begins telling Jewish jokes. The punchline is Jerry visits the dentist’s former priest and the following conversation takes place.
Jerry: I wanted to talk to you about Dr. Whatley. I have a suspicion that he’s converted to Judaism just for the jokes.
Father: And this offends you as a Jewish person.
Jerry: No, it offends me as a comedian.
“Wash, Rinse, Repeat”………………………………
Do you see the church as preaching tolerance, respect, both or neither?
The Church often preaches tolerance and respect, while at the same time practicing intolerance and denigration. It’s unacknowledged bigotry, which makes it doubly offensive: being intolerant while patting oneself on the back for preaching tolerance. It’s a damaging form of un-self-awareness. And LDS are very good at being un-self-aware. I suppose that’s a gentle way of saying ignorant, and most LDS are largely unaware (ignorant) of key points of LDS history. Ignorance is bliss.
Example: Most Mormons think God made the rules about no one of African descent getting the LDS priesthood or receiving temple ordinances, making them second-class citizens or much worse in the Church and in the eyes of other members. We were obedient, not bigoted. Then — glorious day! — God changed his mind and our wonderful prophetic leaders received inspiration that changed the policy (although the folk doctrine and entrenched negative perceptions remained for decades). Isn’t revelation wonderful? What, apologize? We don’t need to apologize. We deserve praise for our obedience and for getting divine revelation.
That’s not at all how the rest of the world sees it. Non-LDS see LDS as making up bigoted doctrine and rules, then for a century making up facts (generally termed lying) to justify that doctrine, then finally changing the policy twenty years after most of the country embraced racial equality, that is only after public pressure and negative PR (and missionary or church administration difficulties) became a real problem, which pushed leaders to finally make the change. Nothing at all to admire. Just the opposite.
Kamala went to a Black college and was member of Black sorority. At that time I guess she was Black. Why does she have to choose? Are Vance’s kids white or Indian???
@ A Disciple, “I don’t see much disrespect in Trump’s comment. He is making an observation based on historical evidence. Even if one argues that Trump is being selective in his choice of evidence, his observation is valid. The observation is that some people are chameleon about their racial identity.”
So, by this logic, missaplying any observation to someone is valid and cannot be considered disrespectful? So, like, if I observe that, factually, some conservatives think left-wing politicians should killed and then I say, A Disciple wants them to be killed, you would find that valid and respectful because the observation is valid?
Brian, the tone and terms of your post suggest that you lack respect for people who think differently than you. I don’t see anything in A Disciple’s post that suggests what you propose. I don’t follow your logic.
A Disciple simply showed that both sides engage in identity politics. Sure, Trump is doing now (and may regret it, because I think it will cost him votes in November), but it has been happening for a long time. Remember Ms Clinton’s basket of deplorables? She had contempt for people who didn’t think the “proper” way about issues, and the proper way, of course, was her way. I had forgotten about Romney claiming to be a lifelong hunter, maybe the way I am a lifelong golfer (I occasionally played putt-putt in my youth and even with my children, and I occasionally get a meal at a local clubhouse restaurant). A Disciple pointed fairly to both sides. His comments merit respect, if not agreement.
The whole “not truly who they say they are” schtick is Trumpist racism at it’s finest. He launched his campaign on claiming Obama has not born in the US and not truly American. A strain of conservatism hates racial diversity, multiculturalism, and intersectionality. They even hate the concept of intersectionality because they see it as a made-up academic word and they hate the university and how “dumb” things like race are studied there. They are angry, grievance-stricken people whose whole political philosophy is hating the liberal boogeyman they’ve constructed in their minds. It is truly pathetic. But it is a simple fact that many people don’t squarely for into one category and are intersectional. Kamala Harris is both Indian and black.
My parents do not tolerate or respect religious or political differences. They see the world only through the lens of the church. They see liberalism as a massive threat. I’ve told them that I’m liberal and vote Democrat, and they are in denial about that as if I’m confused and don’t know what I’m doing or talking about. They won’t acknowledge it.
On A Disciple’s comment. He accuses Kamala Harris of being a “chameleon” on her racial identity. Wow. He then claims that Obama claimed he was born in Kenya in his book. Huh? And then Georgis demands that we respect such disrespectful and nonsensical claims? Please.
Thank you for confronting this issue hawkgrrl. I have been thinking about the weird comments myself in terms of respect vs disrespect. I have to agree that if it isn’t respectful to call an autistic or transgender person weird, it probably isn’t respectful to call the Trumpists weird either.
As far as the church, as a culture we need to develop respect for other cultures. We are too busy setting ourselves up as being more right than everyone else to pay attention to others properly to develop respect. We look at others mostly for missionary purposes instead of trying to learn from other points of view.
The same applies to both political tribes as well, to an extent.
To those defending Trump’s racist tropes: while this post rightly calls out many traps, I don’t think it’s supports (and I don’t support) the idea that we should ‘respect’ disrespect or ‘tolerate’ intolerance. Those are the claims oppressors use to oppress.
Regarding your question about what the church teaches about tolerance and respect, I would say that as a general principle I think the leadership of the church believe in it and teach it. They are all about getting along with and respecting other faiths. Where they fall short is in how they talk about people with no faith at all, or about former members who have left. There seems to be a lack of comprehension of how anyone could live a fulfilling life as a nonbeliever or former member of the church, and a sense that people in those groups are a threat to the membership of the church, and so the rhetoric starts falling into dismissiveness and condescension at times. Some leaders are better on this than others, of course, and I hope this trends in a better direction over time.
Yes/but……
Yes/but allows a person to be both respectful (yes) and disrespectful (but) in one statement.
When my daughter came out as gay, got married, and had two IVF children all I heard from members of my ward was Yes/but about one or any of those choices. When they ask me now why I don’t attend church I give them a Yes I love the people in my ward but I’m tired of having to defend my daughter every time I talk to someone about her family.
It’s the same thing with politics, yes the republicans or Trump are……. but the democrats do……. and are the same thing. It’s done virtually all the time without understanding the background, facts, definitions, or context of what is being spoken about. It’s almost like two six-year-olds arguing about whether Santa Claus is real or not.
Everything has two if not multiple sides of complexity. Yes/but can be said about any issue, problem, solution, or even observation. Showing respect is great but there usually is a right and wrong to most issues but it depends on your overall view. For instance, is government the servant or the master? If it’s the servant maybe universal health care would work but if it’s the master it’s a waste of time, money, and resources, then imposes power over us. Another example is “Guns, God, and Trump” or Obama’s “Hope” which Harris is falling back on that allows us to use religion in our political choices.
So, yes/but becomes a way of life for both sides. Maybe we should turn it into more of a but/yes to explain who we are.
Some people say that calling a bi- or multi-racial person a chameleon is evidence of bigotry. I don’t know if it’s true, but some people say it.
I watched the entire (short) interview of Trump at National Association of Black Journalists’. I was appalled at how Trump viciously attacked the first journalist. There was a W&T entry on DARVO a few weeks ago; Trump’s response to factual, professional questions of Trump’s racist/bigoted past language is a textbook example of him employing DARVO to pretend to be the aggrevied victim. I encourage all to watch the interview. All 3 journalists on stage comported themselves well. Just when I start to forget how much I loathe this man, I see him in action and I am reminded all over again of how bad of a human he actually is. He truly is one of the meanest, vindictive, and divisive political leaders of our time.
There are some weird things going on in the right regarding race. Specifically, when Vance said of his wife “she’s not white, but I love her.” Like, who is apologetic about their wife’s race? It’s a bit off putting. I also heard more of the Walz context regarding his comment about “weird” things on the right. He contrasted coming home from work, throwing a frisbee to your dog, giving your dog a belly rub and telling him what a good boy he is, and then pointed out that there’s just no way Trump ever does that. It reminded me of the Succession series. When I first watched it, all the characters were so jarring because things they were doing and how they were thinking was just so unlike my everyday life (even nothing like my corporate life), that it just seemed, well, weird. And yet, there were so many parallels to the Trump family (which it was not based on–apparently it was based on the Murdochs) that I thought it was about them at first, like an expose but with better insults. There’s a scene where Tom is initiating cousin Greg into the rich lifestyle, and he takes him to a restaurant where they cover their heads with a napkin to savor the taste of the crunchy songbirds they are eating. It’s just so . . weird. In that sense, Walz is just making the same argument about a candidate you’d have a beer with, but much more effectively.
In my view, though, where Walz really gets it (and I’m also from a small rust belt town of 400 people), is that people from small town America didn’t grow up filled with resentment. The golden rule really was “Mind your own damn business,” and this is the core thing that the right has forgotten. Religious freedom can’t mean freedom for religions to run the country and our lives. It always surprises me when Mormons don’t get this because there were almost no Mormons where I lived, and the other churches sometimes got together to discuss how to oppose the Mormon church’s plans like getting land to build a church, so why the Church would think these are their friends is beyond me. A politics of “mind your own damn business” is definitely more appealing. I’ll take the pluralism of Rhode Island over the Puritanism of Massachusetts Bay any day and twice on Sunday.
The description of Kamala Harris on the State of California Department of Justice’s homepage while she was Attorney General of California 2010-2017:
“In 2004-2010, Kamala Harris served as the first woman District Attorney in San Francisco’s history, and as the first African American woman and South Asian American woman in California to hold the office.”
Since she has been in the public spotlight, Kamala Harris has always identified as and been described as both Indian and black. As her father is a Jamaican of both European and African heritage and appears in pictures to have African heritage, it has always been quite obvious that Kamala is black. Trump is trying to do with Harris what was done with Elizabeth Warren, who in the past claimed to be of Native American descent without any recognized membership in a Native American tribe or without being able to establish the identity of her supposed Native American ancestor. At one point, Warren’s employer Harvard claimed her to be a Native American hire. Before announcing her candidacy in the 2020 race, Warren put out a video showing how she had strong reason to believe that she was of Native American heritage and that she never used it to get ahead. It was compelling. After watching it, I believed that Warren had good reason to believe that she was of Native American heritage to some degree. But it was also embarrassing, since in one segment of the video it showed a Stanford geneticist telling Warren that after a DNA test he was confident that she was at least 1/1024th Native American, which the average amount of Native American blood in US whites. The issue ultimately wore down Warren and made her probably less viable as a candidate.
However, with Harris, Trump’s comment about her not being truly black appears to be backfiring. For one, it shows ignorance about the black community, which accepts quite a diverse number of genetic characteristics, including people who are more genetically European than African, as black. After all, Jim Crow was given a stamp of approval when the Supreme Court found that Louisiana’s Separate Car Act of 1890 which barred blacks from riding in white train cars, including Homer Plessy, who was 1/8 black, was constitutional. A 2014 23 and Me study revealed that the average black person in the US has 24% European ancestry. By contrast, only .98% of whites have African American ancestry. Additionally, blacks on average have more Native American ancestry than whites. The black community has long lived with racial diversity within their own community. They have long understood racial intersectioanality.
Within American white supremacist culture, there has long been a notion of purebloodedness and a phobia against mixing with other darker-skinned races, lest the children’s whiteness be diluted. Expressed within this notion has been a fear of non-whites and those who are less pureblooded and how they will sometimes appear to be more pureblooded than they really are to derive benefits that they don’t deserve. You are to stick to your real identity and accept the lot that comes with it. Trump’s claim that Harris is not fully black is in part a reflection of this longstanding white supremacist fear. And it is despicable in the extreme deserving no respect in the least.
Oh my gosh, are we still playing the both-siderism false-equivalency game?? Trump and his supporters are engaging in flagrantly racist, dehumanizing, and vicious rhetoric because they obviously wish to deport, ban, and/or cancel millions of Mexicans, Muslims, Trans people, sick people with preexisting conditions, and more, as he objectively spent his entire presidency trying to do; the Left by contrast are calling them “weird” because they are trying to prevent White Nationalism from becoming normalized again. These are not the same thing. Not even slightly.
You might as well argue that Ukraine is equally to be blamed for getting invaded by Russia, or that the Allies were as bad as the Axis for shooting back. Maybe this election is all just an intellectual exercise to the predominantly white and affluent people who frequent this site, but for millions of minorities and other marginalized peoples, the stakes are real and terrifying. Only one side is clearly trying to exterminate the other.
Since Trump’s effort to treat the Vice President as if she’d been self-serving in her ethnic identity failed on him so miserably his new assault is to call her Kambala when he so clearly knows her proper name.
This is a deliberate — and rather petty preschool — form of public disrespect. The ironic thing is that he wears his obvious meanness and inadequacy as a human being as a badge of honor and not shame. And, worse, that his followers accept it as such.
Did your family of origin tolerate people’s differences or respect them?
My mom grew up in rural Washington. She has bright red hair and her experience with Latinos/hispanics is heavily colored by being cat-called by migrant farm workers when she was a high schooler. She never said overtly racist things growing up, but I don’t think she would have approved of me dating let alone marrying someone who she deemed non-white.
Having said that, her attitudes have vastly evolved and improved for the better. Most of this is due to exposure and and the reality of having many different races and ethnicities in our immediate and extended family. She now has a biracial granddaughter (black and white) and one of my sisters is married to a Japanese American. She also served a mission to Hong Kong and, well, let me just say that our entire home was decorated with a Chinese aesthetic. I grew up making wontons, pot stickers, using chopsticks, and mostly eating Asian cuisine (my father served a mission to Japan and he likewise embraced Japanese culture post-mission). The best thing that can be said is that missions, when done right, expose LDS Americans to the diverse tapestry of human culture, race, ethnicities, nationalities, and cultures. When done poorly, it looks like cultural imperialism and erasure.
Excellent points, Hawkgrrrl.
I’m convinced that what we believe/tolerate/respect has little to do with ignorance, intelligence, or malice and much more to do with our instinct for social survival and staying with the in-group.
Some of us are courageous enough to go against the grain and follow our critical thinking into the unknown. I don’t think I’m one of those people. I suspect I may never have had the courage to question my beliefs if there weren’t an online community like this one where I felt welcome.
So it turns out that saying, “You’re wrong about X/Y/Z because of this evidence” isn’t nearly as effective for changing minds and hearts as saying, “If you ever change your mind about X/Y/Z, I’ll support you.”
JB
I agree with you in a general way. However, two wrongs do not make a right. Trump’s denigrating and dehumanizing of his opponents doesn’t mean that those who oppose him are justified in doing similar things to oppose him. Doing so will move our whole society to a level of disrespect that hurts all of us.
Calling him weird is quite mild, and perhaps a better strategy than something more extreme. Still, having been called weird myself, I can’t fully endorse it as a respectful way to treat any one. There are many pertinent, clear, political and justified comments we can make that explain why Trump shouldn’t be the leader of the country that aren’t attacks based on personal characteristics
What works about weird in this case, at least I think so, is that he’s referring to the ideas of the party leaders, not the voters. He’s reminding them that we used to all (as Americans) feel kind of the same way, even if we had different political preferences. Tracking women’s periods and movements across state lines to prevent pregnancy is weird behavior. It’s fine to live according to your own beliefs, but as Walz said succinctly “Mind your own damn business!”
Honestly, he’s reminding me of the best school teachers I had, and making me wish I were teaching high school. I went to a normal public high school too, and the best teachers had a sense of humor and respected the kids and were just kind people. Of course the idea of teaching high school under the GOP sounds terrifying: school shootings and funds being diverted to private and religious schools. That’s all pretty yikes. Back in my day, you got in trouble for smoking on school property or cutting class, but you were also just as likely to have a teacher chuckle with you about your misdeeds and tell you to do better.
lws329, I agree with you that calling Trump weird is insulting. But funny thing is, that saying the true things about him was getting Democrats exactly nowhere. But suddenly say that the man is weird, and not only does he react that is has been insulted, but it made people notice that he is also racist, senile, a felon, a rapist, misogynist, and a few other very true things that are actually bigger insults. Why do people suddenly *hear* that he is weird, when they just cannot hear that he wants to be dictator?
I mean, I really don’t get it. I could tell the truth about Trump all day long and nobody pays any attention, but say the man is just weird and suddenly they pay attention and notice for themselves that he is also cruel and dishonest.
So, I am all for calling both Trump and Vance weird, not only because they ARE, but because then his followers start seeing him for what he is. He is not religious, so why do the religious want to follow him? He is not an average guy, so why do average guys want to follow him? He is not rural, or small town or not highly educated. He is supper rich, yet the poor say, “oh he is one of us” and I just don’t get that. He is NOTHING like the people who want to follow him. He is “the elite” and yet attracts the very people who feel insulted by “the elite” while he holds them in contempt. So, anything to get his followers to see he is nothing like they are.
If understating how problematic Trump really is gets people to really look, then I am all for it.
Trump is weird. Trump is strange. Trump is different than normal. He is just plain abnormal.
I think Trump culties wearing adult diapers outside their clothes is weird. Just sayin’
I’m with JB. Calling the rightwing people ‘weird’ is the mildest insult possible compared to what the rightwing people call everyone else. Gays are all pedos. Drag queens are pedos. Immigrants are all rapists and murderers. Hilary Clinton was accused of running some kind of Satanic blood drinking cult of pedophilia out of a pizza place and the Republicans didn’t try to shut down that rumor at all.
Trump makes up rude names for people all the time. There is an entire wikipedia page devoted to Trump’s name-calling. He’s had eight years to grow up and cut it out, but he’s still making up new names to be rude. Just this week, he started calling Kamala Harris “Kambala.” Also Ron DeSanctimonious, Crooked Joe, Sloppy Steve (Bannon) and I could go on. The fact that he’s now getting his feelings hurt about name-calling should be educational for him.
Honestly, it’s a relief to be able to laugh at Trump and his believers. We’ve spent so long being afraid of him. It’s a breath of fresh air to step back and look at just how ridiculous and funny the rightwing culture war is. Why are they so obsessed about other peoples’ genitals and sex lives? Let’s just admit that’s weird and quit trying to respect the bizarre things they invent out of thin air to try and pick a fight. All they’ve done is ruin Christianity.
Also, a second thumbs up for Anna’s comment.
Janey & Anna, I could not agree more. Swerving from “the end of democracy” to “these guys and their ideas are weird” is *chef’s kiss* and honestly, has lifted the mood of dread in this country almost as much as dropping gas prices.
I can’t help but agree with the three of you in many ways 😊
Just so hopeful for our country right now…
The irony of accusing VP Harris of being a “chameleon” is that for years, JD Vance has been playing both sides of his own background for sympathy (dysfunctional middle-class rust belt upbringing AND dirt-floor poor Appalachian ancestry, which he is at least 3 generations removed from). It’s basically the whole premise of his book. People aren’t formed in a vacuum, and sometimes make impressive accomplishments because of (or in spite of) their disadvantaged background. Vance knows this better than most, yet now he’s betraying that narrative with the company he keeps. And because Trump doesn’t read, he will never know what Vance really thinks of him.
As a white male I have no idea what it’s like to move through American life as a biracial woman, especially one who has done it with as much success as Harris. She can identify however she wants; its her intentions and actions that matter. She’s not perfect, but I have much more faith in a lifetime public servant than someone who’s spent his whole life in pursuit of self-aggrandizement at the expense of others.