I don't think that is the case. You can make any two disparate groups look similar by leaving out crucial details. For example, suppose I describe a "Band of misfits from the middle of nowhere, working against the Empire that brought war to their homeland, striking against a symbol of that Empire." That could describe either the Star Wars Rebellion, or the 9/11 terrorists. The key is that I left out critical details to differentiate between the two.
This is a very common form of verbal sleight of hand.
* Step 1: Choose two disparate symbols.
* Step 2: Describe each in as vague of terms as possible.
* Step 3: Keep only the vague descriptions that are consistent between the two.
* Step 4: Imply that since the same reduced description fit both symbols, those original symbols are the same. Everything up to this point is a useful form of humor. It is this implication that is the false equivalence that zzzeek is referring to.
this is exactly the technique that the author used and the willingness of even highly intellectual readers on HN to fall right for it reveals to me a strong emotional urge to normalize the current state of affairs, so that they can go about their day and not really worry about it. The current state of affairs is not normal. There is no US historical precedent for it.
I don't see step 4 in the article. Pointing out a similarity between two different things is only a false equivalence if you try to draw conclusions that are not supported by the abstract descriptions you have reduced them to.
For example, a band of misfits attacking an empire would be expected to use guerilla tactics and execute concentrated attacks against high-value targets. It only becomes a false equivalence if you try to argue that the 9/11 terrorists were capable of interstellar travel based on the Star Wars analogy.
I understand what you're trying to say, but the point is Trump just isn't as bad as he's made out to be by some segments of the population. And everything he does tends to be inflated and exaggerated FAR past any reasonable point.
Not to mention the fact that he has a hostile media and the entire cultural segment (from sports athletes to celebrities) to contend with, a hostile Congress (certainly the House, and even the Senate), a judiciary that blocks him at every turn (and frequently overstepping their bounds), and an existing regulatory, and military hierarchy that is tepid (at best) towards him and has him in check. There's also a pending independent investigation that is looking at the more egregious accusations (for which we have no evidence at this point).
We had 2 years of Trump, and so far, his tenure has been a nothing burger compared to the Bush years, and the beginning of the Obama years when the entire economy was at risk of collapse. His tweets do suck, but everyone just ignores them now. He shit-posts on Twitter - once you get past that, there's nothing there.
I would be way more apprehensive with Bernie Sanders as president or a Democratic party where AOC-types are in charge. That kind of leaderships would have a far greater effect on day to day life.
