It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

In a Basket of Deplorables

page: 8
44
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Here's what you said that I responded to Ketsuko:


originally posted by: ketsuko

I think it involves separating what is actually meant to hurt and demean from what is simply something you don't want to hear or don't like hearing, not because the other person is trying to be mean, but because you simply don't like hearing it because you don't like it.


Your claim here is that the key is intent. Your claim is that if something is not "what is actually meant to hurt and demean" the issue is on the person who is hurt, because they didn't want to hear what someone was saying.

Your statement is true in some cases and untrue in others in my opinion.

I've stated many times that, in my opinion at least (which is all any of us are providing here, as we're not telepathic) Clinton was using a figure of speech ... hyperbole or metaphor.

For example, if someone said "I got these eggs home from the store and half of them were broken." ... would you accuse someone of lying if there were five broken eggs? How about seven?

No, probably not.

I've already noted here that I personally wish Clinton had made the point she was making a different way. But the point is, and it's a valid point, that there are many folks who are supporting Donald Trump who do fit those categories (and Clinton too) AND he has elevated a man who wanted to be the platform for the American Alt Right to be his campaign director.

I find it fascinating (but typical) that so many here who have been whining for years about snowflakes who let someone else's words hurt them are now the ones crying loudest.

You've had "labels hung on you" that were unfair? Wow, that must suck.

It must be like being called Communists, traitors, perverts, terrorists, etc. when you're not.

Perhaps there is an opportunity here for ALL OF US to be more mindful of our speech and treat each other with at least a modicum of respect ... EVEN when we don't respect the other's opinions?

Something to think about.
edit on 16-9-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling




posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 10:23 PM
link   
A fellow down at the local watering hole asked some fair questions tonight: "What does Hillary know about Trump supporters? Has she been among those who have been infiltrating his rallies? How many Trump supporters do you recon she's spoken with?"



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

She called "racists, sexists, homophobes and religious bigots" within the pool of Trump Supporters, Deplorable. That seems very specific to me as far as being an identifier.

Anyone who's insulted by that comment is insulted because they must also think they are included in that group.

If you don't belong in the group of "racists, sexists, homophobes and religious bigots" then there shouldn't be any issue you have by her making that comment. Trump supporter or not doesn't matter.

It's that simple.



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 10:57 PM
link   
So I just had a completely harmless post on this thread removed by a moderator who advertises his extreme right-wing bias in his screen name.

Above Top Secret, you should be ashamed of yourself. The basket of deplorable now includes this web site.



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
So I just had a completely harmless post on this thread removed by a moderator who advertises his extreme right-wing bias in his screen name.

Above Top Secret, you should be ashamed of yourself. The basket of deplorable now includes this web site.


You can be sure it won't be the last time that happens.

All I can say is blow it off. It will do you no good fighting about it. Believe me.



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
A fellow down at the local watering hole asked some fair questions tonight: "What does Hillary know about Trump supporters? Has she been among those who have been infiltrating his rallies? How many Trump supporters do you recon she's spoken with?"


Maybe......50%.



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Not quite true, she also said that roughly 50% of Trump supporters fell into that category. That's a lot of people being implicated. How high a percentage would you require her to state before you get the problem?

If she had said roughly 90% of Trump supporters were deplorable and fell into the categories of racist, sexists, homophobes and religious bigots, would you still say, "if you're upset that's because you think you might be included in that 90% and that's your own guilt"?

The issue isn't that she stated there were bigots, etc, it's that she called roughly half of all Trump supporters that, without knowing for a fact that's even vaguely true. By her statement if someone is a Trump supporter and you call them deplorable you have a 50% chance of being right.

I have no problem with stating facts like there are all these types of people among Trump supporters, there are these types of people among Hillary, Stein, and Johnson supporters too. But the second she put a number to it, she straight up called 50% of Trump supporters deplorable. One in two chance, someone supports Trump they are deplorable.

That's a lot of people she's not giving the benefit of the doubt.
edit on 9/16/2016 by Puppylove because: grammar and spelling

edit on 9/16/2016 by Puppylove because: grammar and spelling



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

It speaks to an arrogance if you are assuming that 50% of your opponents are "deplorable" and 100% of your supporters get a pass and are perfect.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove




The issue isn't that she stated there were bigots, etc, it's that she called roughly half of all Trump supporters that, without knowing for a fact that's even vaguely true.


I believe the term Mrs Clinton used was "grossly generalistic". We know that racists and bigots are attracted to Trump. Their percentage among all Trump supporters is questionable. But, I agree with her assessment that ALL Trump supporters are unhappy with a system they think is broken, otherwise they wouldn't be so willing to see it destroyed by his election to the presidency.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

I suppose we could debate the numbers if you'd like. But she did say she was making a "Grossly Generalized" guess after all.



You know, just to be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites…He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric.


I suppose it's not all that dissimilar from Trump's use of "Many People", or "A lot of people are saying" whenever he makes some comment which of course leaves out any detail as to which people and how many even exist.

There are also some polls which show her 50% guess was somewhat accurate. But I won't bother posting the links to that. I'm sure you've been told about them by now.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 12:31 AM
link   
What's the difference between a SJW or snowflake and those throwing tantrums over this deplorable thing?



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Nothing actually. I'm out. I just realized I was being a hypocrite and arguing for one thing in one thread, and another thing in another.

Words are words, when it comes down to it, it's actions that matter.

If and when people start being attacked or harmed for being assumed to be "deplorable" then we'll talk again.
edit on 9/17/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

It seems to me that all this argument is over a piling steam of bovine fecal matter. It's sheer nonsense because the fact is that she doesn't know the beliefs and habits of the Trump cult because she's not been in contact with them in any personal way. But it appears that the whirlwind she was attempting to conjure up has taken an unexpected turn. It happens, even to smart people. Especially smart people who aren't smart enough to know that they shouldn't be out in public when they have pneumonia.
I fully expect that in an upcoming speech we will hear something along the lines of, "Now he's taken something I said while I was delirious with pneumonia completely out of context...." And we will learn that the speech writer of Friday's address has moved on.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 06:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: TheRedneck

She called "racists, sexists, homophobes and religious bigots" within the pool of Trump Supporters, Deplorable. That seems very specific to me as far as being an identifier.

Anyone who's insulted by that comment is insulted because they must also think they are included in that group.

If you don't belong in the group of "racists, sexists, homophobes and religious bigots" then there shouldn't be any issue you have by her making that comment. Trump supporter or not doesn't matter.

It's that simple.


No, it's because we feel we were shoehorned into that group falsely on someone else's "feelings" on the matter with zero proof, and a lot of generalization.

But go on with your false narrative.....
edit on 17-9-2016 by poncho1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 06:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Puppylove




The issue isn't that she stated there were bigots, etc, it's that she called roughly half of all Trump supporters that, without knowing for a fact that's even vaguely true.


I believe the term Mrs Clinton used was "grossly generalistic". We know that racists and bigots are attracted to Trump. Their percentage among all Trump supporters is questionable. But, I agree with her assessment that ALL Trump supporters are unhappy with a system they think is broken, otherwise they wouldn't be so willing to see it destroyed by his election to the presidency.



Something has to be broken in order to fix it. Sometimes it has to be utterly destroyed, and replaced.

I just don't know which one is the case today. We'll see.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes, the key is intent. How does one establish intent? As you rightly point out, we cannot read thoughts. However, we can observe actions.

Hillary did not say that racists, sexist, etc. were deplorables. She said half (and I will accept that as 'roughly' half) of Trump supporters were deplorables. She then went on to describe these 'deplorables' as racist, sexist, etc. There is a difference between calling bigots deplorable, and calling supporters deplorable and therefore bigots.

Now let's look at some recent history, shall we?
  • Hulk Hogan was fired from the WWE and had his Hall of Fame status revoked after private comments were published.
  • Donald Sterling was forced to sell the L.A. Clippers because of racist remarks.
  • Duane "Dog the Bounty Hunter" Chapman had his TV show cancelled because his son recorded a private conversation where he used 'racist' language.
  • Paula Deen lost her TV show, endorsements, and possibly (can't remember for sure) her restaurant because of allegations of racism.

The list goes on, but that should be enough to make my point. Now, except for enjoying entertainment from a couple of the above, I really don't care about these folks. I don't watch basketball or cook, not crazy about watching people get arrested, and Hulk was retired when it happened. But what I do care about is me. If they can have their property, legacy, and livelihood stripped from them because they were 'racist,' so can I. So can you. So can anyone.

Now consider all the times I have personally had others refer to me as racist, sometimes only because I took a slur against me and turned it into a positive... my nickname. Oh, people have reassured me that it's not a problem because 'you're not really racist,' but none of the examples above have ever been proven to have performed racist acts... only make apparent racist statements in private.

I'd be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts I'm not the only one who has experienced that.

That sets a precedent: if one is accused of racism, one's property can be seized by society, one can be denied employment, and one can be ostracized by society. Not convicted of, accused of. And anyone can be accused of anything at any time by anyone else.

Back to Clinton... she is an established lifelong politician. Her job is to manipulate public opinion in order to promote her agendas. She knows how to plant seeds of doubt and inspirarion in the minds of her supporters. She knows how to 'spin' a message for maximum effect. Her speeches are, for the most part, pre-written and crafted to send a particular message. That is her job, and she is damn good at it.

So when she calls supporters 'deplorable' and then, in the same breath, equates deplorables with racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, all the brandings that are regularly used to demean and attack others, that's intentional. If she had said something to the effect of, "Most racists, etc. support Trump," that would have been a 'spin' but on a fact. If she had said, "50% of Trump supporters are racist, etc.," that would have been specific and provable or unprovable. Your argument about 50% being a figure of speech would have had merit. But to add in a new label was an obvious attempt to extend the racist argument to Trump supporters by association.

You don't get it both ways. She's experienced, yes. But that means you can't claim she just misspoke not a word or phrase, but an entire argument. She knew what she was saying; she intended to say it. She intended to not just insult, but to financially and socially decimate her targets: Trump supporters.

That's the difference between complaints here and the typical 'triggered snowflake' argument. We have something real to defend. And I will defend it. Period.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

No, she called Trump supporters deplorable and then defined deplorable as bigots. There's a difference.

Do you need to hear her speech again?

ETA: Trump said that 'some' illegal immigrants were murderers and rapists. So by your own logic, every immigrant that now calls him a racist must be a murdererer or rapist. Nice way to insult all immigrants!

Trump gave a speech about the problems of destitute inner-city minorities. So by your own logic, any minority that now complains about it must think they are destitute and live in the inner city. Right?

TheRedneck

edit on 9/17/2016 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Trump said that 'some' illegal immigrants were murderers and rapists.


No. Actually, he said some (Mexican immigrants), he supposed, "were good people."

Here's what he said:

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”



No, she called Trump supporters deplorable and then defined deplorable as bigots.


In "English grammar" we call that a "qualifier". The word deplorable has a definition:
de·plor·a·ble
dəˈplôrəb(ə)l/
adjective
deserving strong condemnation.
"the deplorable conditions in which most prisoners are held"
synonyms: disgraceful, shameful, dishonorable, unworthy, inexcusable, unpardonable, unforgivable; More
shockingly bad in quality.
"her spelling was deplorable"
synonyms: lamentable, regrettable, unfortunate, wretched, atrocious, awful, terrible, dreadful, diabolical;


Mrs Clinton qualified her definition of "deplorable" to specifically include racism, sexism, homophobia, and whatever other awful, terrible, dreadful, diabolical behavior that we see coming from a high percentage of Trump supporters.

All I see, on this subject is faux outrage from people jumping willfully into Clinton's "basket of Deplorables", and Trumplethinskinned hypocrites, calling out Clinton for something that they laud Trump for, telling like it is and political incorrectness.



edit on 17-9-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 09:17 AM
link   
I don't think I have ever witnessed a comment backfire so spectacularly, and then be embraced by the other side with so much enthusiasm.




posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Puppylove




The issue isn't that she stated there were bigots, etc, it's that she called roughly half of all Trump supporters that, without knowing for a fact that's even vaguely true.


I believe the term Mrs Clinton used was "grossly generalistic". We know that racists and bigots are attracted to Trump. Their percentage among all Trump supporters is questionable. But, I agree with her assessment that ALL Trump supporters are unhappy with a system they think is broken, otherwise they wouldn't be so willing to see it destroyed by his election to the presidency.




Yes, but we know the same is true about Clinton as well.

See Omar Mateen's father sitting there at a Clinton rally just for one. Just because no one has bothered to be stupid enough to say "50% of Clinon supporters fall into a basket of deplorables" doesn't mean there aren't a certain number of deplorable people with racist, bigoted, homophobic, misogynistic, etc. attitudes that are likewise voting for her.




top topics



 
44
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join