It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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?
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 (sic) 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?
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) arenot "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?"
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 (sic) I've encountered conlude (sic) that the rates are in fact lower save for horrendously flawed analyes (sic) 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.
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?
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.
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.
Yes, and I see no problem with that. Since his platform is about Americans, it goes to follow that it would exclude others.
It might be true that he is the only one who can solve the problem. He is at the very least the only one who points out the problem, much to the chagrin of people who do not want to hear it.
He knows, and he has stated this explicitly, that he is bound by rules. He has also stated that he is flexible. Much of it is tough talk, threat, and deal making. He doesn’t want to the US to appear weak and he doesn’t want to take anything off the table. It’s just negotiation tactics, and until he does go above the law, that is all it is.
He is maximizing the options.
If you take every statement that Trump has ever said that can be misconstrued as “encouraging violence”, you will not find any violence that is a direct or indirect result of those words. If no violence happened, then it is impossible to say violence was encouraged. In fact, it’s the opposite, and violence is discouraged by Trump.
I’m not sure about that, nor do I know how you can derive that conclusion. Watching any footage of the protesters, they make their motives and reasons quite clear. It’s disruption. They are kicked out of the rallies for that exact reason, and with the sheer amount of them, it takes a bit of sophistry to deny it.
What I see is you holding different people and different cultures to a lesser standard than you would your own. That’s what I mean by relativism.
originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: dukeofjive696969
I am having a really hard time understanding this thread, trump fans where happy when trump was insulting people, now that the tables are turned, its bad to call people names?
Snowflakes on the right, say aint so...
Who said they were happy Trump was insulting people? One example will do.
Dammit you asked me for 1 example, you proved me wrong lol.
Mexicans are rapist, got applause's.