They don’t work anymore, those baseless accusations that anyone we disagree with is a racist, misogynist, fascist.

OK, so, DHH wrote this. The post, I assume (see later) largely written to say “look, I was right about DEI”, also pretty clearly suggests that applying those labels to Trump is “baseless”, and that the election demonstrated that people now see through a noisy minority throwing those accusations – at Trump in this case – for the overall good of everyone. The wisdom of the crowd has overcome political correctness, maybe.

Erk.

The problem with accusations like that is that they eventually have to be backed by proof or they’ll bounce like a rubber check. And when even the most mundane political or moral positions were able to earn one of those *ist-y labels, the entire enterprise of throwing them around was bound to go bankrupt. And now it has.

It’s impossible to consider Trump’s political or moral positions as mundane, so given this post is actually about the election it’s very unclear to me why we’d be talking about mundane positions. When we talk about Trump, nothing is mundane or even moderate. Not even his supporters would describe him as that.

That big scary mob that once was has been reduced to near impotence in most arenas, including the biggest of all, the US presidential election. That’s a win for everyone whether they like Donald Trump or not.

If I had to summarise David’s post, it’d be something like: “all the people who voted for Trump demonstrated that throwing around terms like ‘racist’ and ‘fascist’ doesn’t work to scare people into behaving a certain way, and that’s a good thing.”

Hopefully even he would agree that was a fair summary.

But what if the accusations aren’t baseless?

His ex Chief of Staff thinks he fits the general description of a fascist. His disrespect for the democratic process is clearly authoritarian. He has stated plainly that he wants to silence or remove his opposition.

He fits the definition. Calling him a fascist is hardly baseless, unless you’re going to argue “oh, he’s just saying that, he doesn’t actually believe it or won’t actually do it.” I don’t buy that.

His anti-immigrant claims that immigrants are eating pets are racist. So many other instances of racism are well documented.

You might be able to argue that he’s never been technically convicted of rape, but a jury found him liable for battery through sexual assault. The evidence of his disrespect for women is so easy to find, and so irrefutable, that I won’t even both linking to it.

So these accusations, applied to Trump, are about as far from baseless as you can get.

What, then, can we learn from the election result about baseless accusations then?

Not much, I’d say.

But what if Trump’s win actually demonstrates, terrifyingly, that people don’t care even that he demonstrates racist and fascist behaviours? That they don’t care he’s a conviced criminal, that he’s been indicted four times, that he has no regard for the law. What if the election shows that none of that matters, and that people will vote for him anyway, no matter how corrupt and craven he fucking demonstrably is?

What if the “bankrupcy” is actually the majority’s willingness to overlook objective facts and instead wallow in an individualist fantasy being served up by a wannabe strongman feeding them bullshit stories about how their problems are all somebody else’s fault, and how he’s going to somehow restore them to a “greatness” that only ever existed in a fairy tale? How is that a win for everyone?

OK, look, sorry for the swear. Maybe I’m reading more into what David has written than he intended. I’ve read what he wrote a bunch of times and I’ve tried to find the generous read. I’ve actively worked to try to understand the point he’s trying to make.

I have introspected enough to know that it’s human nature to view events through a lens that reinforces and supports our existing opinions, so I’m not surprised that the election makes David think about DEI. And he can, of course, say whatever he wants, and I respect his right to do that.

And I genuinely appreciate what he contributes, apolitically, to the community I love, even if I disagree with where some of his non-development trains of thought have led him.

But, IMHO, this post seems to be, at best, a pointless and stretched-thin linking of DEI to “woke mob accusations” to the election of a singularly, objectively not good person into a position of incredible power.

And at worst: deliberately suggesting that Trump’s win is “good for everyone” because it demonstrates that calling anyone a fascist or a racist or a sexist or a bigot or a misogynist no longer has any impact on their ability to progress. No matter how accurate those labels actually are.

You might be able to keep politics out of your workplace. But you can’t keep politics out of politics.

Not everyone I disagree with is a racist, misogynist fascist.

But that doesn’t mean Donald Trump isn’t.

Because he very, very obviously is.

They don’t work anymore, those baseless accusations that anyone we disagree with is a racist, misogynist, fascist.

OK, so, DHH wrote this. The post, I assume (see later) largely written to say “look, I was right about DEI”, also pretty clearly suggests that applying those labels to Trump is “baseless”, and that the election demonstrated that people now see through a noisy minority throwing those accusations – at Trump in this case – for the overall good of everyone. The wisdom of the crowd has overcome political correctness, maybe.

Erk.

The problem with accusations like that is that they eventually have to be backed by proof or they’ll bounce like a rubber check. And when even the most mundane political or moral positions were able to earn one of those *ist-y labels, the entire enterprise of throwing them around was bound to go bankrupt. And now it has.

It’s impossible to consider Trump’s political or moral positions as mundane, so given this post is actually about the election it’s very unclear to me why we’d be talking about mundane positions. When we talk about Trump, nothing is mundane or even moderate. Not even his supporters would describe him as that.

That big scary mob that once was has been reduced to near impotence in most arenas, including the biggest of all, the US presidential election. That’s a win for everyone whether they like Donald Trump or not.

If I had to summarise David’s post, it’d be something like: “all the people who voted for Trump demonstrated that throwing around terms like ‘racist’ and ‘fascist’ doesn’t work to scare people into behaving a certain way, and that’s a good thing.”

Hopefully even he would agree that was a fair summary.

But what if the accusations aren’t baseless?

His ex Chief of Staff thinks he fits the general description of a fascist. His disrespect for the democratic process is clearly authoritarian. He has stated plainly that he wants to silence or remove his opposition.

He fits the definition. Calling him a fascist is hardly baseless, unless you’re going to argue “oh, he’s just saying that, he doesn’t actually believe it or won’t actually do it.” I don’t buy that.

His anti-immigrant claims that immigrants are eating pets are racist. So many other instances of racism are well documented.

You might be able to argue that he’s never been technically convicted of rape, but a jury found him liable for battery through sexual assault. The evidence of his disrespect for women is so easy to find, and so irrefutable, that I won’t even both linking to it.

So these accusations, applied to Trump, are about as far from baseless as you can get.

What, then, can we learn from the election result about baseless accusations then?

Not much, I’d say.

But what if Trump’s win actually demonstrates, terrifyingly, that people don’t care even that he demonstrates racist and fascist behaviours? That they don’t care he’s a conviced criminal, that he’s been indicted four times, that he has no regard for the law. What if the election shows that none of that matters, and that people will vote for him anyway, no matter how corrupt and craven he fucking demonstrably is?

What if the “bankrupcy” is actually the majority’s willingness to overlook objective facts and instead wallow in an individualist fantasy being served up by a wannabe strongman feeding them bullshit stories about how their problems are all somebody else’s fault, and how he’s going to somehow restore them to a “greatness” that only ever existed in a fairy tale? How is that a win for everyone?

OK, look, sorry for the swear. Maybe I’m reading more into what David has written than he intended. I’ve read what he wrote a bunch of times and I’ve tried to find the generous read. I’ve actively worked to try to understand the point he’s trying to make.

I have introspected enough to know that it’s human nature to view events through a lens that reinforces and supports our existing opinions, so I’m not surprised that the election makes David think about DEI. And he can, of course, say whatever he wants, and I respect his right to do that.

And I genuinely appreciate what he contributes, apolitically, to the community I love, even if I disagree with where some of his non-development trains of thought have led him.

But, IMHO, this post seems to be, at best, a pointless and stretched-thin linking of DEI to “woke mob accusations” to the election of a singularly, objectively not good person into a position of incredible power.

And at worst: deliberately suggesting that Trump’s win is “good for everyone” because it demonstrates that calling anyone a fascist or a racist or a sexist or a bigot or a misogynist no longer has any impact on their ability to progress. No matter how accurate those labels actually are.

You might be able to keep politics out of your workplace. But you can’t keep politics out of politics.

Not everyone I disagree with is a racist, misogynist fascist.

But that doesn’t mean Donald Trump isn’t.

Because he very, very obviously is.