To honor the writer's main thesis, I'll be very calm and use no swears, which by his logic will help convince him.
1) Accepting terrible framing that benefits ideologies it claims to be against
2) Endlessly mistaking the role of citizens in resisting toxic conservatism
3) Being nonsensical on its own merits.
So we're just going to call people who oppose bigoted and inhumane conservative policies "Trump haters," are we?
Does that help the cause of opposition more or less than a swear?
My observation is that people making these arguments are mainly angry about the disruption of order, not about any specific injustice.
Which is why the disruptive demand for justice is always their target.
Guess what? Sometimes anger is a strategy, and an effective one.
Sometimes nebulous calls for civility can be a trap.
If this is your premise, it's a really bad one.
Does focusing on people who are just as angry as you allegedly are help oppose him more than, you know, opposing him?
No it isn't. Trump isn't the primary danger. The entire movement calling itself 'conservative' is. We are in a desperate and urgent moment.
It takes the actions and words of an elected official and contrasts them against the actions and words of a citizen, treating them as items of equal value and function.
Politicians notice what makes people mad and what people are willing to put up with calmly.
We should show them what makes us mad. They need to see it.
And if an action by a politically-activated citizen is the same as an action by an empowered president.
This is nonsense.
We aren't trying to win over voters.
We're creating a context within which politicians will run.
And we're creating a context within which bullies will bully, or not.
And a context within which apathetic citizens will accept this, or not.
I agree with that.
But this writer is then taking that idea, and applying it to all of us. As does every writer that writes such a piece. Why?
Theory: Consciously or subconsciously, they prefer not justice, but comfort.
A president under investigation.
His campaign manager in prison.
Our allies alienated.
And I'm not running for office.
We can do both, you know. Talk about our anger *and* subjects of substance. We can. Obviously.
Why would this writer choose to write from an assumption that provides a false choice?
And totally ignores all the bad things the people he's scolding have been saying would happen that HAVE happened.
We are trying to oppose injustice.
We are trying to keep the endangered safe.
We are insisting on human dignity.
And yeah, this is the definition of 'urging complacency.'
Maybe one reason the rest aren't seeing what we're seeing is because people with enormous platforms aren't calling attention to it, but instead choose to scold those who are for their tone.
2) Totally ignoring all the warnings that *did* occur in favor of highlighting two that haven't ... yet.
3) Hey, why write this opinion? In service of what?
If I'm trying to win elections, I hate things that cause standing ovations.
But yeah, there are voters who are turned off by hateful language who will run to *that* because Travis Bickle said "f*ck" and people clapped.
People flocked to them like the thirsty to water.
He's just writing the same bad column that we've read a thousand times in the last 2 years.
It keeps getting repeated because people with large platforms really really really hope for it.
1) This argument is in service of a comfortable status quo
2) It doesn't care about justice or endangered people
3) We shouldn't listen to the advice of people who don't want what we want