[chicagobuss]

Assuming you're arguing in good faith, here is the transcript from someone who was in the room with Trump when he was saying all of this:

> He's looking for obedience. This is the thing that shocks him about American generals and continues to shock him, is that they swear an oath to the Constitution, not to the president. That's what he's looking for, personal loyalty. And we know that from many other discussions we have heard around him.

[aliasxneo]

The thing is, I'm not trying to argue. What are you hoping to gain from this exchange? I've already said I despise our two-party system and dislike both campaigns and (in another comment) I've been relegated by both sides.

My original comment was simply a personal observation that, in this election season, I received far more abuse from one side over the other, and that I was sad to see this same disdain continue here in HN. You may have had a completely different experience, and that's perfectly OK, but I'm honestly confused at the goal with you questioning me about a comment Trump made.

[sixstringtheory]

We’re so close to understanding each other here. People have validated your experience, and then said hey, we feel it too. Yet when they try to have the same conversation and seek validation of their own experience, you decide that’s the time to shut the conversation down.

[aliasxneo]

> And for clarity, yes, both sides participate in this charade of incivilities, but I am simply expressing my own opinion as an independent in 2024 that it overwhelmingly came from one side towards _me_ in this election cycle.

I added that sentence with the express purpose of acknowledging both sides have participated in harsh rhetoric, but that for me as an independent, it came far more from one side than the other.

I was getting dragged into an argument I wasn't interested in pursuing since I had already addressed this perspective (and even explicitly re-quoted it). The commenter's insistence on continuing is what perplexed me, and I don't think my follow-up inquiry was shutting down the conversation.

[sixstringtheory]

I’ll just start by saying it’s bad that you or anyone else ever felt so vilified. That kind of behavior is the first place my mind went to when I saw just how complete this election victory was. It’s a referendum on the rhetorical atmosphere.

Thanks for reiterating that clarification, it kinda got lost on me in the chain of replies. FWIW, I agree with you about the state of discourse today and also feel the heat from both sides (check my comment history to see where I’m coming from) although I’ve been spared any direct vilification of that sort, but I’ve definitely felt my radar spike when listening to nearby conversation in past workspaces.

My best guess is that someone sees the worst rhetoric from “the other side” somewhere on social media and imputes that onto everyone they perceive as being on that side. Then they break after being exposed to too much of it, and lash back out with something equally reprehensible. Then someone on the other side sees that. Repeat ad nauseum…

I’m sorry to hear anyone would seriously suggest forced castration on you, that is just absurdly despicable. I don’t know how this country can rebound from this. Not even one but both or all “sides” have to be vulnerable with the others to apologize and commit to behaving more respectfully. It sounds comical to even suggest that is possible given the litany of things I’ve seen and heard over the last 30 years.

I’m wracking my brain to figure out how I can personally make a difference. Because what Democrats and liberals and those on the far left are doing ain’t working. I say that as a Democratic party voter, albeit one that has to hold their nose too often. Do Republicans have to hold their nose when they vote for Trump, or are they actually voting with joy? If so, color me envious.

[aliasxneo]

You know, for as many toxic people as I've met from both sides, I've met just as many, if not many more, authentic and genuinely wonderful people. Like me, they are just as hurt by the brokenness we all feel around us. Like me, they often are just looking for confirmation that it's not just them, that they are not the odd one out. Who like me, are seeking genuine human connection and not more division and conflict.

Most of my disgust is reserved for the spirit that produces this vitriol we see all over the political landscape. Or, using Dawkins' language (yes, a genuine Christian independent quoting Richard Dawkins), this meme that is infecting the culture at large. It's a plague and I'm always saddened when I see it rear its head, especially here on HN.

I'm not smart enough to have it all figured out, but I've found the most meaningful work I've been able to do is in small communities where face-to-face is the priority. It's why I really prize community work. We're all here, from different backgrounds, working entirely for free, but for a cause we all deeply care about. I've had some amazing conversations during these times.

Anyways, I appreciate your genuine response. I can tell you care deeply, and I encourage you not to lose hope.

[x-complexity]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42071409

> just curious if you think that the rhetoric from trump and his followers is not only hurtful, but also incredibly violent.

It was *exactly* at this moment that the old tactics resurfaced.

Instead of just saying "Yes, you're right", a counterfact was brought up to refute OP's original premise. This tactic laid bare how such a conversation like this would end up: With either side just saying "but X said this!", whilst no common ground is established.

chicagobuss was not seeking to establish common ground, instead the goal was to construct a fight & win it.

-----

> We’re so close to understanding each other here. People have validated your experience, and then said hey, we feel it too. Yet when they try to have the same conversation and seek validation of their own experience, you decide that’s the time to shut the conversation down.

Because there was no attempt in a genuine exploration of the original premise.

The *moment* that aliasxneo tried to break down where the insults came from, instead of examining why the sources were engaging in such rhetoric, chicagobuss barged in with a "but X said this!", and proceeded to engage in a fight instead of an examination of the original premise.

The original premise still remains unexamined: Why these circles felt that they could engage in the same tactics as who they hate & not feel repercussions from doing so.