11mo ago

MAGA Republican Pledges “End of Democracy” to Rabid Cheers at CPAC | Republicans at CPAC 2024 are openly vowing to take down democracy.

newrepublic.com MAGA Republican Pledges “End of Democracy” to Rabid Cheers at CPAC

Republicans at CPAC 2024 are openly vowing to take down democracy.

Archived copies of the article: ghostarchive.org archive.today web.archive.org

About the only way we're going to actually have a democracy is if they consistently lose elections. That's going to mean volunteering, donating, and actually turning out to vote

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

230 comments

“Don the Magic Cloak of Plausible Deniability and come with us!”
GP didn't say these people or this speaker aren't trying to destroy democracy. GP said they were being sarcastic in this specific video timestamp with the "ending democracy" quote and the context around it.
But nobody in this thread has doubted that the Republicans are anti-democratic in general.
Delivering something in a sarcastic affect doesn’t necessarily make it a joke if the context doesn’t support it.
Well did you actually look at the context in the video? Because if you don't see that he is being sarcastic there then, no offence, you have no idea what sarcasm is. Or you are hugging your confirmation bias like your life depends on it, which to be fair it actually might. The speech in its entirety is clearly a fascist screed, but that doesn't mean the beginning of it isn't sarcastic. And obviously so at that.
Read the wider context.
Yes, context matters. On that we agree. And unless you think he is actually proposing to "flood the nation with millions of invaders [sic] who vote the way we want" then he was being fucking sarcastic there.
- And unless you think he is actually proposing to “flood the nation with millions of invaders [sic] who vote the way we want” then he was being fucking sarcastic there.
  That is not what I mean when I say he wasn't being sarcastic. I understand that the joke is he said "this is my plan", then listed a bunch of things the Democrats did, including when he listed immigration, and then the punchline is the Democrats did those things and have already destroyed democracy. What I mean is that he and MAGA supporters really believe that immigration is the Democrats fault. And that he thinks immigration poisons the blood of our country even though the US is a nation of immigrants and in fact immigration is a net benefit.
  When he says, to paraphrase, "I want to destroy democracy" but says it in a sarcastic way, I mean he's not being sarcastic. He really wants to destroy democracy. He describes destroying democracy in the second part of his CPAC speech.
  
  He really wants to destroy democracy.
  That is irrelevant.
  He describes destroying democracy in the second part of his CPAC speech.
  Also irrelevant.
  There are, by definition, two conditions to be met for his statement to be sarcastic.
  Does he intend the statement to be ~~ironic~~ satirical? Yes he does, he is throwing a statement made about him back at the Democrats.
  Does he intend the statement to slight a third party? Yes he does, he is saying the Democrats are the ones actually wanting to destroy democracy.
  It is entirely possible for him to want to destroy democracy and still say it in a sarcastic way at the same time. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
  Plus, as we have established down-thread, you seem to agree that he doesn't believe he wants to destroy democracy, because he has a twisted notion of what democracy means.
  I don't understand why that is so hard to grasp for people in this thread.
  Edit: a word.
  
  Plus, as we have established down-thread, you seem to agree that he doesn’t believe he wants to destroy democracy, because he has a twisted notion of what democracy means.
  I recommend a descriptive approach for definitions rather than a prescriptive approach. Rather than using the dictionary as a kind of set of physical laws for what words mean, prescriptive, it's relevant to consider how people use words, descriptive. I agree his definition of democracy is twisted. But when he gives that definition for the word democracy, he means democracy and more specifically US democracy.
  I think your argument is missing the forest for the trees here, because your argument's logic seems to be he isn't using the definition of the word properly therefore it isn't possible for him to mean that he wants to destroy that thing. As long as the definition of a word is understood by other people, then a speaker can assign a word whatever definition they want.
  When people say he's just being sarcastic, they mean he doesn't really mean what he says. He really wants to destroy democracy. So by that definition of sarcastic, the one people are using, he is not being sarcastic. edit: typos
  
  Rather than using the dictionary as a kind of set of physical laws for what words mean, prescriptive, it’s relevant to consider how people use words, descriptive.
  Yes, I am aware of the two basic schools of thought in linguistics, thank you. When people use words as defined in the dictionary then it is still descriptive though.
  I think your argument is missing the forest for the trees here, because your argument’s logic seems to be he isn’t using the definition of the word properly therefore it isn’t possible for him to mean that he wants to destroy that thing.
  No, I'm saying that is entirely unrelated to the question of him being sarcastic or not.
  When people say he’s just being sarcastic, they mean he doesn’t really mean what he says.
  He doesn't mean it, according to his own way of thinking at least. By our way of thinking he wants to destroy democracy, but not by his. That is why I'm saying he is being sarcastic.
  So by that definition of sarcastic, the one people are using, he is not being sarcastic.
  Apart from my disagreement on this point voiced above, in that case people should change the dictionary. They haven't. If everybody uses their own definition then language becomes useless.
  Edit: typo
  
  When people use words as defined in the dictionary then it is still descriptive though.
  If you mean people can use words as defined in dictionaries and those dictionaries are still descriptive then I agree.
  Apart from my disagreement on this point voiced above, in that case people should change the dictionary. They haven’t. If everybody uses their own definition then language becomes useless.
  A dictionary that uses a descriptive approach very well might. It doesn't matter if the dictionaries haven't. As long as people understand each other when they speak it's fine. People can understand meanings of words even if they aren't all enumerated in the dictionary. This is self evident from observing any number of conversations on or off line. The one example that comes to mind is the use of the word literally. People used it incorrectly, for when they meant figuratively. The response people gave was not, I do not understand what you said. They said you didn't mean literally you meant figuratively.
  And on Merriam-Webster's website, they did add a new definition to the literally based on its new usage.
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
  2 : in effect : virtually —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice— Norman Cousins
  The comment I replied to originally was using the word sarcasm to mean he doesn't mean what he says. So that's the definition I used in my reply. I understood what the writer of the commenter said without needing to refer to the dictionary first. As I said, his tone of voice certainly sounds sarcastic and seems to meet the definitions you listed. This isn't particular relevant though. Fascists use the cloak of ~~possibly~~ plausible deniability to mask what they say. A sarcastic tone of voice is one such tool.
  He doesn’t mean it, according to his own way of thinking at least. By our way of thinking he wants to destroy democracy, but not by his. That is why I’m saying he is being sarcastic.
  I would say his characterization of US democracy, all the things he said the Democrats are doing in his joke, is his way of explaining why he doesn't value US democracy and therefore is why he is ok with destroying it. Based on the fact he doesn't like immigration or mail in voting, what he doesn't like about US democracy is that his minority doesn't fully control it. In his mind, both of those things deplete his minority's power. His speech does not indicate he values some other definition of democracy. When he says new American republic he means christofascist dictatorship. He knowingly wants to replace US democracy with a christofascist dictatorship, because then his minority will have total control over American life.
  So nowhere in his line of thinking is he being sarcastic, as in he doesn't really mean it, because he doesn't value majority rule. He wants minority rule. He does not believe democracy means or is minority rule. Instead he believes democracy means and is majority rule and believes that is a bad thing. When the only real difference between our definitions is that we believe majority rule is good and he believes it's bad, we're all not only talking about the same thing, but we also all know the thing he wants to destroy is US democracy. edit: typo
  
  You are flipping definitions here. Originally you said by a descriptive definition it's sarcasm when you do not mean it (which aligns with the dictionary definition by the way, so I'm still confused why you made that point at all). He says he doesn't mean it, in his speech, verbatim. Your or my interpretation of his other actions and politics doesn't matter to the question of whether he is being sarcastic. I'm done with this conversation now, good bye.
  
  Originally you said by a descriptive definition it’s sarcasm when you do not mean it
  I've been consistent with this definition in my argument.
  which aligns with the dictionary definition by the way, so I’m still confused why you made that point at all
  You argument seemed to be about relying on dictionary definitions to determine what fascists are saying in their speeches. This choice lead you argument to the wrong conclusion.
  He says he doesn’t mean it, in his speech, verbatim.
  I've watched the CPAC speech three times now. Where does he say this?
  Your or my interpretation of his other actions and politics doesn’t matter to the question of whether he is being sarcastic.
  I think our interpretations could not be more important. Democracy and people's lives depend on everyone's ability to recognize fascism. A key part of that is analyzing the speaker's actions and political views to determine what he actually wants and believes.
  
  Ok, fuck. Against my better judgement and because I'm sufficiently drunk, here I go again... Drunk text. You were warned.
  Let me start off with saying that I empathise with your point. I get what you are saying ultimately, I think. And if you see that on your Lemmy instance, I'm not the one downvoting you. I think your heart is in the right place.
  But I really don't see your point about the sarcasm question. It's not a question. It's there. By definition. Why is this the hill you want to die on?
  I mean the rest of his speech is just crazy over crazy. The MAGAdonians? I mean come on it's a goldmine for proving the fuck out of him being a fascist, but you are going for the one trap he lays you, where he is obviously being sarcastic. This is not going to dismantle his larger argument to anyone who might even vaguely relate to it, on the contrary. You need to do better.
  But you asked, so here I go again:
  He says he doesn’t mean it, in his speech, verbatim.
  I’ve watched the CPAC speech three times now. Where does he say this?
  He starts out with saying "most dangerous speech to democracy" in a mocking voice, then seriously "not just drain the swamp burn it to the ground". The whole thing drips of sarcasm from the start. Money quotes right here.
  "Shining city on a hill, drain swamp, bla bla".
  Then he lists three sources who he apparently suggests mis-cited him, Jeff Reid, Morning Joe, Mark Hamil. (?) He is mocking their accusations that he would "end democracy". "We have to end it, that's what the media told me". This couldn't be more clearly sarcastic.
  Then he starts to explain his plan to end democracy, which is a list of things Republicans have accused the Democrats of doing that they consider an attack on democracy. The stolen election check-list™ I have documented in another comment. Again clearly mocking the "other side", hence sarcastic.
  He ends this part of the speech with saying:
  This is their “democracy” [doing air-quotes]. This is the regime we will overturn. They say democracy but they mean authoritarianism, and we know it.
  Again, clearly telling people that he is being sarcastic, outright, into their faces. He does not mean "real democracy™", he means "fake democracy™".
  It's there. And I don't get why you are trying to prove that it's not, when there is so much bullshit in it that you could go for instead.
  Anyway, you will not find any luck in insisting somebody isn't sarcastic when they most clearly are. This will convince nobody. You need to appeal to their better senses, like "real" Christianity, the American Dream, Human rights, or whatever it takes for them.
  I mean even he cleverly does this in his speech, extending an open hand to anybody and everybody, even the Swifties? Like they have a somewhat coherent narrative that people will follow, and you have to admit this guy is not bad at making propaganda for it. And IMHO you are falling for his taunt here. He challenged the public to quote him on this, because he could say it was sarcastic. Because he is.
  I'm mean don't ask me how to stop the fucking fascist in the end. Some relatively influential German politician just proposed what essentially amounts to forced labour for all immigrants for several months to horrendous "wages", like <1$/h wages. In fucking Germany! The gall! So yeah, I'm not really sure what to do about it either.
  
  Ok, fuck. Against my better judgement and because I’m sufficiently drunk, here I go again… Drunk text. You were warned.
  If this is what drinking and texting produces, then more people on social media should be drinking.
  This is their “democracy” [doing air-quotes]. This is the regime we will overturn. They say democracy but they mean authoritarianism, and we know it.
  Again, clearly telling people that he is being sarcastic, outright, into their faces. He does not mean “real democracy™”, he means “fake democracy™”.
  This is his shallow lie, where he mischaracterizes democracy and says it authoritarian. In usual Republican double speak he makes his authoritarian takeover sound like a movement for ensuring freedoms when it most assuredly will take them away. He really believes that the Democrats have done all of the things or that the things they've actually done are harmful as listed in his joke. The whole joke boils down to, "no you", with an alternate universe worth of lies.
  Then he lists three sources who he apparently suggests mis-cited him, Jeff Reid, Morning Joe, Mark Hamil. (?) He is mocking their accusations that he would “end democracy”. “We have to end it, that’s what the media told me”. This couldn’t be more clearly sarcastic.
  It would be sarcastic if he wanted to preserve democracy. He wants to destroy democracy. So it's not sarcastic. His goal is a christofascist dictatorship.
  Anyway, you will not find any luck in insisting somebody isn’t sarcastic when they most clearly are. This will convince nobody. You need to appeal to their better senses, like “real” Christianity, the American Dream, Human rights, or whatever it takes for them.
  I can only hope you're wrong. There is really nothing else to say to people at this point except that the Republicans mean it when they say want to destroy democracy. If they win in November, the Republicans are planning on dismantling our democracy by replacing nonpartisan members of the executive branch with partisan yes men, as detailed in Project 2025. They may not hold elections at all, but if they do, there won't be many people to run against them since they are undoubtedly going to jail political opponents. The amount of harm Trump can do in the next four years really isn't worth thinking about because there isn't a hard limit. He wants to use the Insurrection Act to declare martial law and deploy the military in American cities on day 1. The only way to stop these fascists is to out vote them, until someone can figure out a vaccine for self-destructive ideologies. edit: typos

230 comments