Trump's Specter of Violence

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Are we speaking in questions again? No, what people say cannot affect us.

Then how come the whole whiny bellyaching special princess OP?

You don't even believe in your own drivel

P.S. How about that chiasmus explanation?

I don't get your argument here, if you could call it that.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think if you start calling someone Hitler, you'll begin to believe it is true. Do you disagree?

What are you trying to say? Do you believe what you're saying?

So, one more time - can what people say affect us - or not?

Only if you let it, obviously.

Look how many times hillary has been called a liar and crooked.

Doesn't seem to affect her at all. Right?

Trump is still being called orange, he's not anymore. So, what's the point of calling him orange now?

Hillary is still lying and crooked, so that is legitimate but still has no effect on her, just her zombie army of paid shills.

If one didn't listen to words that hurt, one would be better off.

One could just kill them like hillary is accused of.

Understand?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Why should I?

Up to you - but it looks just exactly like what it is

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Up to you - but it looks just exactly like what it is

And what is that?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You're avoiding the argument. Your words:

No, what people say cannot affect us.

Are you saying your Hitler example is meaningless? Why did you use it?

Are you saying your OP is meaningless and ineffectual?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Are you saying your Hitler example is meaningless? Why did you use it?

Are you saying your OP is meaningless and ineffectual?

Speaking in questions again?

Yes, people have the ability to believe things. Yes, people can believe lies, propaganda, and all means of rhetoric at their whim and desire.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: hubrisinxs

The media is falling apart. Whether win or lose, Trump's candidacy is bringing to light the propaganda of the media class, and this goes for both sides of the aisle. It will never be the same again.

And I also feel LEsM, that both major warring camps have
been outed for their only common interest: it isn't the
people's, only the incumbent or favored members.
I have screamed the agenda is common to both, making
the US no better than when the USSR had 'two parties'.
Finally, my respect for your eloquence in the OP has been
increased a couple of notches-- and I thought that impossible.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yes - questions

...and all means of rhetoric at their whim and desire.

Whatever Les :-)

Some people believe what Donny says. We all have different opinions about whether that's rhetoric, propaganda or lies

You believe in him - and defend him

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Whatever Les :-)

Some people believe what Donny says. We all have different opinions about whether that's rhetoric, propaganda or lies

You believe in him - and defend him

You say that like it's a bad thing.

If you want to bank on rhetoric, by all means. All that to me is the act of politics—Trump is at least entertaining in that regard—and any Tom Dick and Jane are enamored with all that. If we are banking on anything else but rhetoric, a simple weighing of the scales is all it takes to see who is better at leading. It's always the elite talkers and thinkers, and the ivy-leaguers who are the orthodoxy now. I think it's time for a doer.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I'm just saying it

If you want to bank on rhetoric, by all means. All that to me is the act of politics—Trump is at least entertaining in that regard—and any Tom Dick and Jane are enamored with all that. If we are banking on anything else but rhetoric, a simple weighing of the scales is all it takes to see who is better at leading. It's always the elite talkers and thinkers, and the ivy-leaguers who are the orthodoxy now. I think it's time for a doer.

What?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I've actually given it deep thought, believe it or not. admittedly I kicked and screamed throughout.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I've actually given it deep thought, believe it or not. admittedly I kicked and screamed throughout.

For posterity

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

trump does encourafe violence

Racial slurs, nasty rhetoric and violence at Trump rallies have become commonplace against protesters, bystanders, and reporters. Assaults are committed not only by rowdy Trump fans, but by the staff he employs to keep the events safe. But rather than denounce these incidents, Trump is making them part of his brand, and uses them to rev up crowds. "There may be somebody with tomatoes in the audience," Trump warned people at a rally in Iowa last month. "If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell -- I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees."

a reply to: lortl

In order to encourage violence, violence must be encouraged. Nothing of the sort was encouraged. Therefor Trump did not encourage violence.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

For posterity

Like I said in the OP. Only history will tell who the fascists were. For posterity.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: lortl

In order to encourage violence, violence must be encouraged. Nothing of the sort was encouraged. Therefor Trump did not encourage violence.

A lovely logical proof, except that it is not based in the complexity of truth, and it is based on "proving the negative."



For me to buy into your argument, you need to prove the negative "Nothing of the sort was encouraged." As I'm sure you know, that is impossible.

Several people have demonstrated evidence of exactly the kind of rhetoric, combined with "group think" and "group emotional contagion" and "group behavior" that show violence being "encouraged." The psychology of the situation must be adequately understood and considered.

Here are a few out of many pieces worth considering:

The Psychology Behind the Violence at Trump Rallies

Blog article on group violence studies "The Psychology of Group Violence is Protected by Morality Shifts"

Three studies conducted by the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, suggest that the violence of a group is justified by a subtle shift in the way things are framed. In other words, if a group commits violence, it frames morality in terms of authority and loyalty. The violence of other groups is instead framed by appeals to concepts like harm and fairness.

One must also look at Trump as a propagandist, and an influencer - that is part of the definition of a successful politician, isn't it? To varying degrees?

Analyze the "propaganda" (messaging/marketing) and you see the creation of:
1) "them" vs "us" and strong group identification / engendering of "loyalty" to a "strong leader" persona, (that is why he defines others as 'weak' 'small' 'low energy' 'infirm' and lauds his own supposed strength and stamina), which plays into they psychology of the Presidency in terms of those who see the presidency as fulfilled in the Strict Father figure archetype.

2) Trump's insistence that "only he can solve the problem" (he claims to be a savior)

3) his indications that strong actions may have to take place that will be morally/Constitutionally abhorrent because what the rules are being broken for is a greater evil, and thus a greater good will arise from these "tough actions."

Examples: killing families of terrorists, recommending torture - both waterboarding and greater, opening Guantanamo Bay prison to Americans with military trials without representation (this is particularly troublesome and echoes 'concentration camp' style imprisonment), a "tough cop" given permission to amplify his "toughness" could "eradicate the crime and street violence in one week" (one may assume by unfettered acts outside the rule of law, claiming to somehow be in service of the rule of law)- and I'm sure there are others - this is just off the top of my head.

Imagine if "the other" had proposed any of these things?

4) Trump's approval and personal statements of desire to commit violent acts at rallies - not only does that play right into "group psychology" and "loyalty to the leader and group" it has a the secondary benefit of solidifying the "us v them" dynamic through direct actions (violence). These actions are then justified by a "moral shift" that allows for such actions to take place against "them."

For example, you say Trump supporters are acting in "defense" of the group who is being infiltrated and interrupted by protestors, and therefore they are simply "sticking up for themselves" (an appeal to fairness) when the protestors are acting out due to being labeled by Trump and his followers as "the problem" and "the other." They are acting out to demonstrate their own humanity, their own sense of anger and being told they do not belong (that is the perception they have based on Trumps rhetoric). They too feel they are being treated unfairly, and they justify their actions, even violence, on the SAME GROUNDS as Trump and his supporters.

Again, I do not defend either side if they are initially violent, or if they are attempting to keep the first amendment rights of those assembled from being expressed, HOWEVER, it doesn't take much for fearful, angry words from a "strong leader" to "encourage" violence in a supporter who believes he or she is acting on behalf of the group. This goes for Trump supporters and protestors and their leaders alike.

The anger some people feel towards groups like BLM is the anger of exclusion - that is the SAME anger Trump engenders with his rhetoric, and BLM seems to evoke Some BLM 'supporters' are vocally against white people but MOST BLM people are simply wanting their humanity acknowledged and upheld by the justice system and in general, regardless of the awkwardly created semantics...see the theme here? See how it fits both groups?? That is the whole reason for the "All Lives Matter" backlash - because "Black Lives Matter" seemed exclusionary and further fanned the flames of "us v them" I don't think they meant to do that, but it certainly would have helped if they'd added the implied "too" at the end of BLM. (Black Lives Matter Too! Who can argue with that?)


Moral justification for violence then becomes one of "us v them" and appeals to "fairness" as you have done - you claim it is unfair for the protestors to protest in the manner that they are doing so (some were silent, some interrupted by shouting, some are now acting with violence on people leaving rallies, and some are offering positivity and solidarity but who covers those in the media??)

You claim victimhood for the Trump supporters because protestors are escalating their own violence - yet it is in response to what they perceive as both physical and social attack (they are the "other" spoken of and created by Trump and are in their eyes defending themselves from his rhetoric). This only serves to make the "other" more "other" and the "us" more "us." The lines become harder and firmer. It is NOT a good thing.

BOTH groups are acting with "group responsibility" and not "individual responsibility" - they do not attack each other because of personal grievances with other individuals, but as part of a clash of ideology, of group identity and perceptions of violence from a group that calls them "the other."


So, perhaps you would rethink and rework your logic? Perhaps think not so much in terms of "direct cause and effect" and the more accurate "systems" approach to causality? In other words, group dynamics, group psychology, and projection of loyalty and leadership all must be accounted for in the equation, as well as the creation of "the other" and the "savior" by Trump; it is not simplistic, but complex.

I do want to say that I appreciate you, LesMis. I disagree with you, but I appreciate your education and your intellect. I appreciate your willingness to debate on those levels as it is remarkably refreshing.

So thank you!

- AB

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Nothing of the sort was encouraged.

FALSE!

(See above post by AboveBoard for details.)

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

“They’re not sending their best”. That’s his argument, which he brings home with the follow up statements. What does that mean? That means exactly what he says. And yes that includes all of the above. If Mexico was sending their best, he might be singing a different tune. “They’re doctors. They’re lawyers.” But they are not.

It was fairly clear that Trump was saying that "they" (I assume the Mexican government) are "sending" the "worst" members of Mexican society. I'm glad we can at least agree on that.

If the worst of a country are moving illegally into another country (emphasis on the word illegally) by subverting and breaking the laws of that country in order to do so, then yes that means most of them are not good people, by definition.

You cite "lawyers" and "doctors" as examples of people who aren't among "the worst" of society as though doctors and lawyers are inherently better people based on their professions which is at best the sort of hasty generalization an elitest would be expected to make based on a single possible measure of a person's worth.

In what way is a rapist with a law degree better than a poor farmer who has never committed a violent crime in his life? Does a doctor running a pill mill to line his pockets — a drug dealer for all intents and purposes — contribute more or less to society than a hard working blue collar laborer?

"This [...] relativism is a species of denial."

You said it. You also said this: "then yes that means most of them are not good people, by definition."

So you're conceding that crossing the border illegally doesn't perclude a person from being a "good person" (by your own relativistic definition of "good person") and yet without any other specific knowledge of the people crossing the border, you're stating that "most of them" are not "good people?" Where's the rationale in that?

He is not speaking about all Mexicans, all immigrants, all illegal Mexican immigrants, or any other combination of words you feel like using

Exactly what percentage of a group must be unduly disparaged to cross the threshold into dehumanization in your book? He didn't say "all" — that part is true — but he did say that "some" were "good people" and while the detonation of some is essentially "an unspecified part of a whole" there is a popular connotation for "some" implying a number that is certainly inconsistent with "most." In fact, in this usage, the obvious implication was that most (illegal immigrants from Mexico) are not "good people" (only "some") which I'll also note is in line with your own statement, "most are not good people, by definition."

Not only is Donald Trump at the very least as guilty as Bill Maher of dehumanizing people, Bill Maher's brand of dehumanzing is far less severe by societal standards.

In other words, which is worse? To label people as "fact-free racist rednecks" or as "drug-dealing rapists?"

It is a point of fact to say that if there was a better immigration policy and enforcement along the southern border, sex crimes, kidnapping, homicide might be lower in parts of the US where it is a demonstrable problem. Many crimes against Americans will be prevented, and no amount of virtue signaling will change that admittedly difficult fact.

Who is really doing the "virtue signalling" here? Using the term is itself a form of "virtue signalling."

Why would the raw crime figures be a useful measure? If a society has 1,000 members and 8 rapes and another has 10,000 members and 16 rapes, in which society would you think a woman was less likely to be raped? A far more useful measure would be rate of occurrence.

Do illegal immigrants rape or murder Americans at higher or lower rates than American citizens rape or murder Americans? In all the reading I've done on the subject, all reports and analyes I've encountered conlude that the rates are in fact lower save for horrendously flawed analyes of 2 GAO Criminal Alien Statistics reports that are frequently presented by anti-immigration organizations, far-right media sources, and a handful of GOP politicians, most notably Representative Steve King of Iowa.

And I get it, yes people will conflate what Trump says to mean "Mexicans are rapists", or "illegal immigrants are rapists", as you and others have shown, and they may commit hate crimes under that dubious assumption. But that is a sign of their own thought process, not Trump's.

That's no more valid a point than if you substituted Maher for Trump, "Trump supporters are fact-free rednecks" for "Mexicans are rapists," etc and as I said a few posts back, Bill Maher is a comedian and Donald Trump is running for President of the United States.

The question I'm left with is why you're so much more concerned with the words of a comedian which have far less influence and import than the words of a man who could be President?

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



Why would you hold the reactions of those who were attacked to a higher standard than Trump, or Trump supporters, who originally did the attacking?

For every action there is a reaction, and in human behavior the intensity or calm of that reaction may vary greatly from the original source -- we get to choose our reactions, in other words.

.....

One must ask, then, who vomited the original foulness that required someone to find their reaction? Whose mouth spewed forth and fomented the first insult? From the "left's" point of view, it was Trump. He did so against his fellow Republicans from the very beginning, and insulted swaths of various groups in addition: How Donald Trump Insulted His Way to the Top of the GOP

To think that the conversation and insults started with Trump is a mistake. Trump's rise to political power is a direct response to the disenfranchisement and ignoring of a large section of this country by the political system. The media has been complacent in the belittling of this section of society, as have many other "esteemed" institutions such as the entertainment and academic worlds.

White people are evil, men are evil, straight people are evil, people concerned about immigration are evil, etc. This rhetoric has been going on for years. Students are taught now that the white patriarchy is responsible for all ills in the world, the entertainment industry is so one sided that to declare yourself a conservative in it would almost be career suicide, and the media is self admittedly mostly liberal. Obama was supposed to be a great unifier, but instead he has been one of the most divisive presidents ever.

People got tired of the moral superiority and jabs from these groups. Remember the mocking of BUsh (who I disliked by the way). There were tv shows about how dumb he was. Late night shows like Bill Maher made a living off of insulting Bush and his supporters. But this was ok, it was just seen as funny. I don't recall any great outrage.

So along comes Trump, someone who seems to be as tired of this as this large group of people. He starts hurling insults back (many of which were dumb and I condemned). Now all of the sudden this is too much and he started all of the vitriol.

Where was the outrage when many in the media were calling the Tea party racists, or people in rural areas as cling to their religion and guns? Where was the outrage when 30 years of education taught students that "Whiteness" is evil? Where is the outrage when at making fun of any conservative supporter?

To those saying this is a false equivalency, it is not. Politicians on the left including Obama have engage in this rhetoric, let alone the media, academia and entertainment industry.

The worst part of it is the fact that the left, unlike the right, claims a moral high ground. Trump is a bad person because of his rhetoric and divisiveness, but when the left does the exact same thing, it is justified. I have made threads on this, but no one on the left here on ATS cares to comment on them.

Trump lumps people together = racist, but people on the left lump all Trump supporters together = justified. Trump makes fun of womans looks is bigotry, but making fun of Trumps looks or color is hilarious. Trump talk of immigration is fear mongering, but Hillary and Obama talking of climate change and guns is heroic. And on and on. All the while the left claims to be the side of moral superiority, and that is a joke.

And then when the leaked emails show that the DNC actaully made racial and homphobic slurs, they are just slid under the rug. Where were all of you that are outraged at Trump here on ATS when that was shown? For some reason that wasn't as big of a deal right?

Anyone with any sense of impartiality can see that the majority of violence has came from the left this election. The media and others justify it by saying Trump started it, but this is a joke. Either the violence is justified on all sides, or none of it is. I denounced the violent Trump supporters, and I didn't hedge my comments by saying I understood it like people on here are doing with the left. Remember when the guy charged Trump on stage, and CNN gave him a half an hour of air time to discuss his beliefs? Can you imagine the treatment a person would have gotten by CNN had the rushed Obama and Hillary?

And remeber, when Bernie supporters attack Trump rallies, they are noble patriots exercising their rights, but when they were against the DNC they wer being ridiculous and forced to leave. That is how the DNC views this.

Look, if the media and the left want to hate Trump for his rhetoric, I am fine with that. But to then engage in the same type of rhetoric they are criticizing while trying to claim a moral high ground is absurd. Regardless of the outcome of this election, it has revealed the character of much of the media and many on the left as hypocrites

a reply to: Grambler

I know you know this, but the answer is very simple. The means always justify the ends, and the ends of the left are always paramount and will be achieved by any means necessary.

I have never actually been able to determine whether or not leftists who engage in these debates really are as blind to all this as they seem or if they actually are as intellectually dishonest as the evidence implies because there are quite a few who would seem to be smarter than an excuse of blindness would seem appropriate.

Perhaps the intellectual dishonesty comes from the weakness of truly wanting to believe themselves to be true moral paragons fighting the constant good fight, but I would think that at some point they would have to admit that they can't always be right 100% of the time and they would start to get a wee bit suspicious of that.