Read on Twitter
Trump supporters all talk as if we don’t have any idea what Trump is like and can’t possibly draw any conclusions based solely on the public record of what Trump is and the fact they’re supporting him anyway.
"Oh you find out I'm a Trump supporter and you immediately pigeonhole me."
No. We find out you're a Trump supporter, and we immediately understand that you're a person who supports Trump. That's not starting at baseline zero, not at all.
No. We find out you're a Trump supporter, and we immediately understand that you're a person who supports Trump. That's not starting at baseline zero, not at all.
Great that you have friends who are people of color, great you have gay friends.
You've made yourself comfortable with their exclusion and endangerment, their harm and abuse and death by entrenched power. Whether enthusiastically or pragmatically, you've done that. It matters.
You've made yourself comfortable with their exclusion and endangerment, their harm and abuse and death by entrenched power. Whether enthusiastically or pragmatically, you've done that. It matters.
You don't get to decide what that decision says about you. It's your decision, and you're free to make it—but people are free to come to accurate conclusions about what that decision means.
That's their decision, and they're free (and wise) to make it.
That's their decision, and they're free (and wise) to make it.
Remember, it's not about whatever intention or motivation you've constructed to convince yourself you can do something like this and still be OK.
It's about alignment. https://twitter.com/JuliusGoat/status/1159268925500268544?s=20
It's about alignment. https://twitter.com/JuliusGoat/status/1159268925500268544?s=20
Electing Donald Trump was an act of war against humanity itself. Supporting him is supporting that war.
Listen, Trump supporters: Nobody has to first convince you of this truth in order to believe it of you. They don't need license from you to think it.
It's *already* true.
Listen, Trump supporters: Nobody has to first convince you of this truth in order to believe it of you. They don't need license from you to think it.
It's *already* true.
People might opt to have a conversation with a Trump supporter about their motives, but it strikes me as unlikely. Those motives are interesting from a forensic perspective, but they don't practically matter, next to the fact of the support.
A conversation certainly isn't owed.
A conversation certainly isn't owed.
And I'd add to it, that Baldwin's logic isn't meant to apply only to a disagreement rooted in a denial of one's own humanity and right to exist, but in anyone else's. https://twitter.com/mkverson/status/1293528538814058503?s=20
Calling a bigot a bigot isn't denying the bigot's humanity. It's observing that they're denying another's humanity, and, in so doing, are denying their own.
It's not a debate topic. It's an observation, and making it doesn't require a polemic victory or a discussion.
It's not a debate topic. It's an observation, and making it doesn't require a polemic victory or a discussion.
