|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 17 2018 23:37 Plansix wrote:
All the reports I have read about those statements say that Trump attempting to talk about criminals and the MS-13, but did little to separate those folks from regular immigrants. The man has a hard time stringing coherent sentences together and the press is going to report on those sentences.
Also, it is poor reporting to not take into account the worst interoperation of that sort of statement. The claims that people are “looking for ways to make Trump seem racist” are true. Racist in the US are looking for any sign that Trump is there guy. And ham fisted statements like the one yesterday back up their belief that Trump is one of them.
I think from Trump's perspective, the difference doesn't matter. If you don't need brown people anyway, why even make the distinction. Just forget the whole thing. Sure you get a few engineers, but you get some rapists and criminals too, so just dump it all.
That being his thinking.
|
On May 17 2018 15:54 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2018 15:44 Kyadytim wrote:On May 17 2018 05:38 Plansix wrote:
So the master plan is to catch families of illegal immigrants, House their children separately and then go through the endless deportation process and hope no one fucks up during that time.
These deportation tactics get more draconian the longer Sessions and others run the show. Don't worry, according to Trump Glorious Leader himself, "These aren't people. These are animals." And it's totally okay to cram animals into structures like warehouses. + Show Spoiler +/s Using dehumanization rhetoric to armor the consciences of the subset of the population that they represent against the guilt of violence against the rest of the population and foreigners is not a good look for any nation. It's hard to not put this next to that IDF tweet. You'd think posting in this thread this long would make one suspicious of getting an answer to a question without the actual question. Of course you went the extra (backwards) mile and didn't even quote a story which would enable anyone to follow up even a little bit. He was talking about MS-13 gang members, as context makes clear. Although most of the news stories either bury that or just don't mention it. And this is why we get the moniker "fake news." + Show Spoiler +
It wouldn't have mattered if he'd said MS-13 in both sentences instead of "These." Criminals and members of criminal organizations are still people, with all the rights and protections afforded people. Reducing them to animals justifies things such as violations of due process.
|
On May 17 2018 16:51 Introvert wrote:
There have to be more important issues on which to burn all of one's credibility. It's not that he's "simple" or "stupid," it's that it's plain to everyone who can turn off the special Trump centers of their brains for 30 seconds that, when asked about MS-13, he responds by talking about MS-13. If he said "MS-13" he'd probably get criticized for saying it when the lady already said it. "He's so stupid he has to repeat what people say to him out loud!"
And it is certainly ridiculous for so many people and reporters to be presenting this as simply "Donald Trump's opinion on immigrants" without even allowing for an alternative interpretation. That's not journalism, it's advocacy. Considering that so many people don't read past the headline, it's espeically egregious.
I used to read several conservative news outlets regularly to avoid being entirely in a bubble, and there's been an increasing usage of phrases such as special Trump centers in the brain or Trump derangement syndrome that unsubtly imply that people who disagree with Trump have been driven insane by him.
Related, you just either called a bunch of people insane or implied that we disagree with Trump because we have brain cancer. That doesn't really contributed to amicable discussion.
|
On May 18 2018 00:47 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2018 16:51 Introvert wrote:
There have to be more important issues on which to burn all of one's credibility. It's not that he's "simple" or "stupid," it's that it's plain to everyone who can turn off the special Trump centers of their brains for 30 seconds that, when asked about MS-13, he responds by talking about MS-13. If he said "MS-13" he'd probably get criticized for saying it when the lady already said it. "He's so stupid he has to repeat what people say to him out loud!"
And it is certainly ridiculous for so many people and reporters to be presenting this as simply "Donald Trump's opinion on immigrants" without even allowing for an alternative interpretation. That's not journalism, it's advocacy. Considering that so many people don't read past the headline, it's espeically egregious. I used to read several conservative news outlets regularly to avoid being entirely in a bubble, and there's been an increasing usage of phrases such as special Trump centers in the brain or Trump derangement syndrome that unsubtly imply that people who disagree with Trump have been driven insane by him. Related, you just either called a bunch of people insane or implied that we disagree with Trump because we have brain cancer. That doesn't really contributed to amicable discussion.
But they have. Few on the right were harsher on Trump during the campaign for his rhetoric than I was. Yet for all the crap Trump has said, everyone has trouble stepping back for a few seconds and see what is actually being said. This happens a lot but I focused on that last night because I had a few minutes and it was such a ridiculous example.
As for "amicable discussion" I'd say that posting the conext-less clip you did then saying that a figure of speech was (or could be) implying you have cancer is arguing in very bad faith, and that's also pretty bad for discussion (and let's be real, "discussion" wasn't the objective when you posted that).
|
On May 18 2018 00:47 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2018 16:51 Introvert wrote:
There have to be more important issues on which to burn all of one's credibility. It's not that he's "simple" or "stupid," it's that it's plain to everyone who can turn off the special Trump centers of their brains for 30 seconds that, when asked about MS-13, he responds by talking about MS-13. If he said "MS-13" he'd probably get criticized for saying it when the lady already said it. "He's so stupid he has to repeat what people say to him out loud!"
And it is certainly ridiculous for so many people and reporters to be presenting this as simply "Donald Trump's opinion on immigrants" without even allowing for an alternative interpretation. That's not journalism, it's advocacy. Considering that so many people don't read past the headline, it's espeically egregious. I used to read several conservative news outlets regularly to avoid being entirely in a bubble, and there's been an increasing usage of phrases such as special Trump centers in the brain or Trump derangement syndrome that unsubtly imply that people who disagree with Trump have been driven insane by him. Related, you just either called a bunch of people insane or implied that we disagree with Trump because we have brain cancer. That doesn't really contributed to amicable discussion.
It’s a nit pick on one story. Meanwhile Introvert voted for the guy who called for banning all Muslims and creating a database of Muslims, but he still wants to believe there’s no overall thrust of bigotry coming from trump. It’s these and other defenses of Donald Trump as president that constitute abandoning one’s mental faculties.
|
It's a parenthesis but we seem to have accepted super easily that it would have been fine if Trump had been talking about MS-13 people when he said animals :/
|
Completely valid point. Even calling gang members animals is unacceptable for anyone holding public office. This is how bad our discourse had become.
|
On May 18 2018 01:12 Nebuchad wrote:
It's a parenthesis but we seem to have accepted super easily that it would have been fine if Trump had been talking about MS-13 people when he said animals :/
I noticed that, too. I just posted that it explicitly wasn't okay.
|
On May 18 2018 01:16 Plansix wrote:
Completely valid point. Even calling gang members animals is unacceptable for anyone holding public office. This is how bad our discourse had become.
I wonder how much tha tparticular point is a change; while many parts of discourse have gotten worse; calling gang members animals "feels" like it's been around for quite awhile to me. only a vague impression though so could easily be wrong.
|
On May 18 2018 01:12 Nebuchad wrote:
It's a parenthesis but we seem to have accepted super easily that it would have been fine if Trump had been talking about MS-13 people when he said animals :/
Guantanamoization of the public debate...
|
On May 18 2018 01:09 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2018 00:47 Kyadytim wrote:On May 17 2018 16:51 Introvert wrote:
There have to be more important issues on which to burn all of one's credibility. It's not that he's "simple" or "stupid," it's that it's plain to everyone who can turn off the special Trump centers of their brains for 30 seconds that, when asked about MS-13, he responds by talking about MS-13. If he said "MS-13" he'd probably get criticized for saying it when the lady already said it. "He's so stupid he has to repeat what people say to him out loud!"
And it is certainly ridiculous for so many people and reporters to be presenting this as simply "Donald Trump's opinion on immigrants" without even allowing for an alternative interpretation. That's not journalism, it's advocacy. Considering that so many people don't read past the headline, it's espeically egregious. I used to read several conservative news outlets regularly to avoid being entirely in a bubble, and there's been an increasing usage of phrases such as special Trump centers in the brain or Trump derangement syndrome that unsubtly imply that people who disagree with Trump have been driven insane by him. Related, you just either called a bunch of people insane or implied that we disagree with Trump because we have brain cancer. That doesn't really contributed to amicable discussion. But they have. Few on the right were harsher on Trump during the campaign for his rhetoric than I was. Yet for all the crap Trump has said, everyone has trouble stepping back for a few seconds and see what is actually being said. This happens a lot but I focused on that last night because I had a few minutes and it was such a ridiculous example. As for "amicable discussion" I'd say that posting the conext-less clip you did then saying that a figure of speech was (or could be) implying you have cancer is arguing in very bad faith, and that's also pretty bad for discussion (and let's be real, "discussion" wasn't the objective when you posted that).
Stop putting words in my mouth. Discussion of how the Trump administration is moving closer to being a totalitarian government by a subset of the population and against the rest of it was what I wanted. Instead I got you changing the discussion to how vague it is acceptable for Trump to be.
As for contextless:
In case I haven't been perfectly clear, there is NO context where the president of the United States saying "These aren't people. These are animals." about human beings is acceptable.
|
On May 18 2018 01:11 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2018 00:47 Kyadytim wrote:On May 17 2018 16:51 Introvert wrote:
There have to be more important issues on which to burn all of one's credibility. It's not that he's "simple" or "stupid," it's that it's plain to everyone who can turn off the special Trump centers of their brains for 30 seconds that, when asked about MS-13, he responds by talking about MS-13. If he said "MS-13" he'd probably get criticized for saying it when the lady already said it. "He's so stupid he has to repeat what people say to him out loud!"
And it is certainly ridiculous for so many people and reporters to be presenting this as simply "Donald Trump's opinion on immigrants" without even allowing for an alternative interpretation. That's not journalism, it's advocacy. Considering that so many people don't read past the headline, it's espeically egregious. I used to read several conservative news outlets regularly to avoid being entirely in a bubble, and there's been an increasing usage of phrases such as special Trump centers in the brain or Trump derangement syndrome that unsubtly imply that people who disagree with Trump have been driven insane by him. Related, you just either called a bunch of people insane or implied that we disagree with Trump because we have brain cancer. That doesn't really contributed to amicable discussion. It’s a nit pick on one story. Meanwhile Introvert voted for the guy who called for banning all Muslims and creating a database of Muslims, but he still wants to believe there’s no overall thrust of bigotry coming from trump. It’s these and other defenses of Donald Trump as president that constitute abandoning one’s mental faculties.
Actually, while I kind of consider this personal info, in a manner, I actually didn't vote for either Trump or Clinton. I shouldn't have to say that, because my point on this comment isn't related. But apparently multiple people think it matters.
On May 18 2018 01:23 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2018 01:09 Introvert wrote:On May 18 2018 00:47 Kyadytim wrote:On May 17 2018 16:51 Introvert wrote:
There have to be more important issues on which to burn all of one's credibility. It's not that he's "simple" or "stupid," it's that it's plain to everyone who can turn off the special Trump centers of their brains for 30 seconds that, when asked about MS-13, he responds by talking about MS-13. If he said "MS-13" he'd probably get criticized for saying it when the lady already said it. "He's so stupid he has to repeat what people say to him out loud!"
And it is certainly ridiculous for so many people and reporters to be presenting this as simply "Donald Trump's opinion on immigrants" without even allowing for an alternative interpretation. That's not journalism, it's advocacy. Considering that so many people don't read past the headline, it's espeically egregious. I used to read several conservative news outlets regularly to avoid being entirely in a bubble, and there's been an increasing usage of phrases such as special Trump centers in the brain or Trump derangement syndrome that unsubtly imply that people who disagree with Trump have been driven insane by him. Related, you just either called a bunch of people insane or implied that we disagree with Trump because we have brain cancer. That doesn't really contributed to amicable discussion. But they have. Few on the right were harsher on Trump during the campaign for his rhetoric than I was. Yet for all the crap Trump has said, everyone has trouble stepping back for a few seconds and see what is actually being said. This happens a lot but I focused on that last night because I had a few minutes and it was such a ridiculous example. As for "amicable discussion" I'd say that posting the conext-less clip you did then saying that a figure of speech was (or could be) implying you have cancer is arguing in very bad faith, and that's also pretty bad for discussion (and let's be real, "discussion" wasn't the objective when you posted that). Stop putting words in my mouth. Discussion of how the Trump administration is moving closer to being a totalitarian government by a subset of the population and against the rest of it was what I wanted. Instead I got you changing the discussion to how vague it is acceptable for Trump to be. As for contextless: In case I haven't been perfectly clear, there is NO context where the president of the United States saying "These aren't people. These are animals." about human beings is acceptable.
Some grade A spin, "context doesn't matter." Fine.
|
I thought about that when I put up the defense that I did. I agree with the notion that you shouldn't call people animals in a derogatory way, but in the end it's just nomenclature. I've thought to myself "these ISIS people are animals" in that way, so I decided to let it slide.
Of course, I don't consider myself fit for public office, so there's that...
|
On May 18 2018 01:26 a_flayer wrote:
I thought about that when I put up the defense that I did. I agree with the notion that you shouldn't call people animals in a derogatory way, but in the end it's just nomenclature. I've thought to myself "these ISIS people are animals" in that way, so I decided to let it slide.
Dehumanizing enemy combatants is pretty standard. its easy to kill something you don't see as human, a lot harder to kill a human with a family and hopes and dreams.
|
On May 18 2018 01:25 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2018 01:11 Doodsmack wrote:On May 18 2018 00:47 Kyadytim wrote:On May 17 2018 16:51 Introvert wrote:
There have to be more important issues on which to burn all of one's credibility. It's not that he's "simple" or "stupid," it's that it's plain to everyone who can turn off the special Trump centers of their brains for 30 seconds that, when asked about MS-13, he responds by talking about MS-13. If he said "MS-13" he'd probably get criticized for saying it when the lady already said it. "He's so stupid he has to repeat what people say to him out loud!"
And it is certainly ridiculous for so many people and reporters to be presenting this as simply "Donald Trump's opinion on immigrants" without even allowing for an alternative interpretation. That's not journalism, it's advocacy. Considering that so many people don't read past the headline, it's espeically egregious. I used to read several conservative news outlets regularly to avoid being entirely in a bubble, and there's been an increasing usage of phrases such as special Trump centers in the brain or Trump derangement syndrome that unsubtly imply that people who disagree with Trump have been driven insane by him. Related, you just either called a bunch of people insane or implied that we disagree with Trump because we have brain cancer. That doesn't really contributed to amicable discussion. It’s a nit pick on one story. Meanwhile Introvert voted for the guy who called for banning all Muslims and creating a database of Muslims, but he still wants to believe there’s no overall thrust of bigotry coming from trump. It’s these and other defenses of Donald Trump as president that constitute abandoning one’s mental faculties. Actually, while I kind of consider this personal info, in a manner, I actually didn't vote for either Trump or Clinton. I shouldn't have to say that, because my point on this comment isn't related. But apparently multiple people think it matters. Show nested quote +On May 18 2018 01:23 Kyadytim wrote:On May 18 2018 01:09 Introvert wrote:On May 18 2018 00:47 Kyadytim wrote:On May 17 2018 16:51 Introvert wrote:
There have to be more important issues on which to burn all of one's credibility. It's not that he's "simple" or "stupid," it's that it's plain to everyone who can turn off the special Trump centers of their brains for 30 seconds that, when asked about MS-13, he responds by talking about MS-13. If he said "MS-13" he'd probably get criticized for saying it when the lady already said it. "He's so stupid he has to repeat what people say to him out loud!"
And it is certainly ridiculous for so many people and reporters to be presenting this as simply "Donald Trump's opinion on immigrants" without even allowing for an alternative interpretation. That's not journalism, it's advocacy. Considering that so many people don't read past the headline, it's espeically egregious. I used to read several conservative news outlets regularly to avoid being entirely in a bubble, and there's been an increasing usage of phrases such as special Trump centers in the brain or Trump derangement syndrome that unsubtly imply that people who disagree with Trump have been driven insane by him. Related, you just either called a bunch of people insane or implied that we disagree with Trump because we have brain cancer. That doesn't really contributed to amicable discussion. But they have. Few on the right were harsher on Trump during the campaign for his rhetoric than I was. Yet for all the crap Trump has said, everyone has trouble stepping back for a few seconds and see what is actually being said. This happens a lot but I focused on that last night because I had a few minutes and it was such a ridiculous example. As for "amicable discussion" I'd say that posting the conext-less clip you did then saying that a figure of speech was (or could be) implying you have cancer is arguing in very bad faith, and that's also pretty bad for discussion (and let's be real, "discussion" wasn't the objective when you posted that). Stop putting words in my mouth. Discussion of how the Trump administration is moving closer to being a totalitarian government by a subset of the population and against the rest of it was what I wanted. Instead I got you changing the discussion to how vague it is acceptable for Trump to be. As for contextless: In case I haven't been perfectly clear, there is NO context where the president of the United States saying "These aren't people. These are animals." about human beings is acceptable. Some grade A spin, "context doesn't matter." Fine.
Context does matter. The fact that he is talking about criminals shouldn’t matter at all, to you or anyone else. The leader of our country referred to fellow human beings as animals. That is unequivocally an attempt to dehumanize them. Criminals or not, they deserve to be treated as humans. It is repugnant and unacceptable for the leader of our country to use that language, especially when the subject is about the government exercising its power to detaining people.
Edit: A reminder that ICE and the immigration courts are not perfect. They have arrested and detained legal immigrants and US citizens, sometimes holding them without access to legal counsel and due process for months. This recent display does not fill anyone with confidence that the Trump administration see those violation of civil rights as anything more than the cost of deporting all the illegal immigrants quickly.
|
On May 18 2018 01:25 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2018 01:11 Doodsmack wrote:On May 18 2018 00:47 Kyadytim wrote:On May 17 2018 16:51 Introvert wrote:
There have to be more important issues on which to burn all of one's credibility. It's not that he's "simple" or "stupid," it's that it's plain to everyone who can turn off the special Trump centers of their brains for 30 seconds that, when asked about MS-13, he responds by talking about MS-13. If he said "MS-13" he'd probably get criticized for saying it when the lady already said it. "He's so stupid he has to repeat what people say to him out loud!"
And it is certainly ridiculous for so many people and reporters to be presenting this as simply "Donald Trump's opinion on immigrants" without even allowing for an alternative interpretation. That's not journalism, it's advocacy. Considering that so many people don't read past the headline, it's espeically egregious. I used to read several conservative news outlets regularly to avoid being entirely in a bubble, and there's been an increasing usage of phrases such as special Trump centers in the brain or Trump derangement syndrome that unsubtly imply that people who disagree with Trump have been driven insane by him. Related, you just either called a bunch of people insane or implied that we disagree with Trump because we have brain cancer. That doesn't really contributed to amicable discussion. It’s a nit pick on one story. Meanwhile Introvert voted for the guy who called for banning all Muslims and creating a database of Muslims, but he still wants to believe there’s no overall thrust of bigotry coming from trump. It’s these and other defenses of Donald Trump as president that constitute abandoning one’s mental faculties. Actually, while I kind of consider this personal info, in a manner, I actually didn't vote for either Trump or Clinton. I shouldn't have to say that, because my point on this comment isn't related. But apparently multiple people think it matters. Show nested quote +On May 18 2018 01:23 Kyadytim wrote:On May 18 2018 01:09 Introvert wrote:On May 18 2018 00:47 Kyadytim wrote:On May 17 2018 16:51 Introvert wrote:
There have to be more important issues on which to burn all of one's credibility. It's not that he's "simple" or "stupid," it's that it's plain to everyone who can turn off the special Trump centers of their brains for 30 seconds that, when asked about MS-13, he responds by talking about MS-13. If he said "MS-13" he'd probably get criticized for saying it when the lady already said it. "He's so stupid he has to repeat what people say to him out loud!"
And it is certainly ridiculous for so many people and reporters to be presenting this as simply "Donald Trump's opinion on immigrants" without even allowing for an alternative interpretation. That's not journalism, it's advocacy. Considering that so many people don't read past the headline, it's espeically egregious. I used to read several conservative news outlets regularly to avoid being entirely in a bubble, and there's been an increasing usage of phrases such as special Trump centers in the brain or Trump derangement syndrome that unsubtly imply that people who disagree with Trump have been driven insane by him. Related, you just either called a bunch of people insane or implied that we disagree with Trump because we have brain cancer. That doesn't really contributed to amicable discussion. But they have. Few on the right were harsher on Trump during the campaign for his rhetoric than I was. Yet for all the crap Trump has said, everyone has trouble stepping back for a few seconds and see what is actually being said. This happens a lot but I focused on that last night because I had a few minutes and it was such a ridiculous example. As for "amicable discussion" I'd say that posting the conext-less clip you did then saying that a figure of speech was (or could be) implying you have cancer is arguing in very bad faith, and that's also pretty bad for discussion (and let's be real, "discussion" wasn't the objective when you posted that). Stop putting words in my mouth. Discussion of how the Trump administration is moving closer to being a totalitarian government by a subset of the population and against the rest of it was what I wanted. Instead I got you changing the discussion to how vague it is acceptable for Trump to be. As for contextless: In case I haven't been perfectly clear, there is NO context where the president of the United States saying "These aren't people. These are animals." about human beings is acceptable. Some grade A spin, "context doesn't matter." Fine.
+ Show Spoiler +
Introvert provided a really good example of this. Introvert appears to be in favor of the president of the United States calling people animals, but doesn't want to say that outright. Instead, he changed the debate from "Is it okay for the President of the United States to call people animals, even if they're criminals such as MS-13?" to what the video refers to as the next argument: "Was the president talking about MS-13?" which is premised on an underlying assumption that if he was, it was okay to call them animals.
Once the conversation moved back to the original question, he called that spin.
|
On May 18 2018 01:09 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2018 00:47 Kyadytim wrote:On May 17 2018 16:51 Introvert wrote:
There have to be more important issues on which to burn all of one's credibility. It's not that he's "simple" or "stupid," it's that it's plain to everyone who can turn off the special Trump centers of their brains for 30 seconds that, when asked about MS-13, he responds by talking about MS-13. If he said "MS-13" he'd probably get criticized for saying it when the lady already said it. "He's so stupid he has to repeat what people say to him out loud!"
And it is certainly ridiculous for so many people and reporters to be presenting this as simply "Donald Trump's opinion on immigrants" without even allowing for an alternative interpretation. That's not journalism, it's advocacy. Considering that so many people don't read past the headline, it's espeically egregious. I used to read several conservative news outlets regularly to avoid being entirely in a bubble, and there's been an increasing usage of phrases such as special Trump centers in the brain or Trump derangement syndrome that unsubtly imply that people who disagree with Trump have been driven insane by him. Related, you just either called a bunch of people insane or implied that we disagree with Trump because we have brain cancer. That doesn't really contributed to amicable discussion. But they have. Few on the right were harsher on Trump during the campaign for his rhetoric than I was. Yet for all the crap Trump has said, everyone has trouble stepping back for a few seconds and see what is actually being said. This happens a lot but I focused on that last night because I had a few minutes and it was such a ridiculous example. As for "amicable discussion" I'd say that posting the conext-less clip you did then saying that a figure of speech was (or could be) implying you have cancer is arguing in very bad faith, and that's also pretty bad for discussion (and let's be real, "discussion" wasn't the objective when you posted that).
Then why aren't you just as harsh on him now? That rhetoric hasn't died down. Remember the Puerto Rico situation?
You say it's a ridiculous example, but you have to put it in context. That isn't a comment made in isolation; Trump has said disparaging things about immigrants and/or non-whites since he started running for office and he's done it while he's in office as well.
What has Trump done to earn him the benefit of the doubt? If you showed me a clip of Obama saying something racist, my first assumption would be that there's some context I'm missing, and to look into it, because the man has a track record of, well, not being racist. Trump has the exact opposite track record, and he's enthusiastically confirming his detractors as President of the United States.
|
On May 18 2018 01:47 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2018 01:25 Introvert wrote:On May 18 2018 01:11 Doodsmack wrote:On May 18 2018 00:47 Kyadytim wrote:On May 17 2018 16:51 Introvert wrote:
There have to be more important issues on which to burn all of one's credibility. It's not that he's "simple" or "stupid," it's that it's plain to everyone who can turn off the special Trump centers of their brains for 30 seconds that, when asked about MS-13, he responds by talking about MS-13. If he said "MS-13" he'd probably get criticized for saying it when the lady already said it. "He's so stupid he has to repeat what people say to him out loud!"
And it is certainly ridiculous for so many people and reporters to be presenting this as simply "Donald Trump's opinion on immigrants" without even allowing for an alternative interpretation. That's not journalism, it's advocacy. Considering that so many people don't read past the headline, it's espeically egregious. I used to read several conservative news outlets regularly to avoid being entirely in a bubble, and there's been an increasing usage of phrases such as special Trump centers in the brain or Trump derangement syndrome that unsubtly imply that people who disagree with Trump have been driven insane by him. Related, you just either called a bunch of people insane or implied that we disagree with Trump because we have brain cancer. That doesn't really contributed to amicable discussion. It’s a nit pick on one story. Meanwhile Introvert voted for the guy who called for banning all Muslims and creating a database of Muslims, but he still wants to believe there’s no overall thrust of bigotry coming from trump. It’s these and other defenses of Donald Trump as president that constitute abandoning one’s mental faculties. Actually, while I kind of consider this personal info, in a manner, I actually didn't vote for either Trump or Clinton. I shouldn't have to say that, because my point on this comment isn't related. But apparently multiple people think it matters. On May 18 2018 01:23 Kyadytim wrote:On May 18 2018 01:09 Introvert wrote:On May 18 2018 00:47 Kyadytim wrote:On May 17 2018 16:51 Introvert wrote:
There have to be more important issues on which to burn all of one's credibility. It's not that he's "simple" or "stupid," it's that it's plain to everyone who can turn off the special Trump centers of their brains for 30 seconds that, when asked about MS-13, he responds by talking about MS-13. If he said "MS-13" he'd probably get criticized for saying it when the lady already said it. "He's so stupid he has to repeat what people say to him out loud!"
And it is certainly ridiculous for so many people and reporters to be presenting this as simply "Donald Trump's opinion on immigrants" without even allowing for an alternative interpretation. That's not journalism, it's advocacy. Considering that so many people don't read past the headline, it's espeically egregious. I used to read several conservative news outlets regularly to avoid being entirely in a bubble, and there's been an increasing usage of phrases such as special Trump centers in the brain or Trump derangement syndrome that unsubtly imply that people who disagree with Trump have been driven insane by him. Related, you just either called a bunch of people insane or implied that we disagree with Trump because we have brain cancer. That doesn't really contributed to amicable discussion. But they have. Few on the right were harsher on Trump during the campaign for his rhetoric than I was. Yet for all the crap Trump has said, everyone has trouble stepping back for a few seconds and see what is actually being said. This happens a lot but I focused on that last night because I had a few minutes and it was such a ridiculous example. As for "amicable discussion" I'd say that posting the conext-less clip you did then saying that a figure of speech was (or could be) implying you have cancer is arguing in very bad faith, and that's also pretty bad for discussion (and let's be real, "discussion" wasn't the objective when you posted that). Stop putting words in my mouth. Discussion of how the Trump administration is moving closer to being a totalitarian government by a subset of the population and against the rest of it was what I wanted. Instead I got you changing the discussion to how vague it is acceptable for Trump to be. As for contextless: In case I haven't been perfectly clear, there is NO context where the president of the United States saying "These aren't people. These are animals." about human beings is acceptable. Some grade A spin, "context doesn't matter." Fine. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPgDQkmqqM Introvert provided a really good example of this. Introvert appears to be in favor of the president of the United States calling people animals, but doesn't want to say that outright. Instead, he changed the debate from "Is it okay for the President of the United States to call people animals, even if they're criminals such as MS-13?" to what the video refers to as the next argument: "Was the president talking about MS-13?" which is premised on an underlying assumption that if he was, it was okay to call them animals. Once the conversation moved back to the original question, he called that spin.
I dare anyone to re-read your post and the one you were responding to and say that the conversation was about the humanity of gang members. You and so many others tried to make this about immigrants writ large, and now you back up and say that it doesn't matter, when it obviously does.
People use the language of animals all the time, flyer said as much. The conversation you claim we are having is not the one actually presented.
|
On May 18 2018 02:30 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2018 01:47 Kyadytim wrote:On May 18 2018 01:25 Introvert wrote:On May 18 2018 01:11 Doodsmack wrote:On May 18 2018 00:47 Kyadytim wrote:On May 17 2018 16:51 Introvert wrote:
There have to be more important issues on which to burn all of one's credibility. It's not that he's "simple" or "stupid," it's that it's plain to everyone who can turn off the special Trump centers of their brains for 30 seconds that, when asked about MS-13, he responds by talking about MS-13. If he said "MS-13" he'd probably get criticized for saying it when the lady already said it. "He's so stupid he has to repeat what people say to him out loud!"
And it is certainly ridiculous for so many people and reporters to be presenting this as simply "Donald Trump's opinion on immigrants" without even allowing for an alternative interpretation. That's not journalism, it's advocacy. Considering that so many people don't read past the headline, it's espeically egregious. I used to read several conservative news outlets regularly to avoid being entirely in a bubble, and there's been an increasing usage of phrases such as special Trump centers in the brain or Trump derangement syndrome that unsubtly imply that people who disagree with Trump have been driven insane by him. Related, you just either called a bunch of people insane or implied that we disagree with Trump because we have brain cancer. That doesn't really contributed to amicable discussion. It’s a nit pick on one story. Meanwhile Introvert voted for the guy who called for banning all Muslims and creating a database of Muslims, but he still wants to believe there’s no overall thrust of bigotry coming from trump. It’s these and other defenses of Donald Trump as president that constitute abandoning one’s mental faculties. Actually, while I kind of consider this personal info, in a manner, I actually didn't vote for either Trump or Clinton. I shouldn't have to say that, because my point on this comment isn't related. But apparently multiple people think it matters. On May 18 2018 01:23 Kyadytim wrote:On May 18 2018 01:09 Introvert wrote:On May 18 2018 00:47 Kyadytim wrote:On May 17 2018 16:51 Introvert wrote:
There have to be more important issues on which to burn all of one's credibility. It's not that he's "simple" or "stupid," it's that it's plain to everyone who can turn off the special Trump centers of their brains for 30 seconds that, when asked about MS-13, he responds by talking about MS-13. If he said "MS-13" he'd probably get criticized for saying it when the lady already said it. "He's so stupid he has to repeat what people say to him out loud!"
And it is certainly ridiculous for so many people and reporters to be presenting this as simply "Donald Trump's opinion on immigrants" without even allowing for an alternative interpretation. That's not journalism, it's advocacy. Considering that so many people don't read past the headline, it's espeically egregious. I used to read several conservative news outlets regularly to avoid being entirely in a bubble, and there's been an increasing usage of phrases such as special Trump centers in the brain or Trump derangement syndrome that unsubtly imply that people who disagree with Trump have been driven insane by him. Related, you just either called a bunch of people insane or implied that we disagree with Trump because we have brain cancer. That doesn't really contributed to amicable discussion. But they have. Few on the right were harsher on Trump during the campaign for his rhetoric than I was. Yet for all the crap Trump has said, everyone has trouble stepping back for a few seconds and see what is actually being said. This happens a lot but I focused on that last night because I had a few minutes and it was such a ridiculous example. As for "amicable discussion" I'd say that posting the conext-less clip you did then saying that a figure of speech was (or could be) implying you have cancer is arguing in very bad faith, and that's also pretty bad for discussion (and let's be real, "discussion" wasn't the objective when you posted that). Stop putting words in my mouth. Discussion of how the Trump administration is moving closer to being a totalitarian government by a subset of the population and against the rest of it was what I wanted. Instead I got you changing the discussion to how vague it is acceptable for Trump to be. As for contextless: In case I haven't been perfectly clear, there is NO context where the president of the United States saying "These aren't people. These are animals." about human beings is acceptable. Some grade A spin, "context doesn't matter." Fine. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPgDQkmqqM Introvert provided a really good example of this. Introvert appears to be in favor of the president of the United States calling people animals, but doesn't want to say that outright. Instead, he changed the debate from "Is it okay for the President of the United States to call people animals, even if they're criminals such as MS-13?" to what the video refers to as the next argument: "Was the president talking about MS-13?" which is premised on an underlying assumption that if he was, it was okay to call them animals. Once the conversation moved back to the original question, he called that spin. I dare anyone to re-read your post and the one you were responding to and say that the conversation was about the humanity of gang members. You and so many others tried to make this about immigrants writ large, and now you back up and say that it doesn't matter, when it obviously does. People use the language of animals all the time, flyer said as much. The conversation you claim we are having is not the one actually presented.
The conversation was never about the humanity of gang members. That's not the discussion we're having. The discussion we're having that you keep trying to dodge out of is "Is it acceptable for the president of the United States to refer to human beings as animals?"
Regarding a_flayer, he acknowledged that there's a difference between him and someone holding public office.
So anyway, Introvert, is it acceptable for the president of the United States to refer to human beings as animals?
|
Flyer also said that he isn't an elected official. But lets get down to pay dirt:
Introvert, are you attempting to argue that our elected officials and leaders calling suspected or proven criminals, US citizens or otherwise, animals is not a big deal? That people are over reacting to the language?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
