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.
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?
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?
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?
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 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
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.
I've actually given it deep thought, believe it or not. admittedly I kicked and screamed throughout.
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."
For posterity
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.
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.
Nothing of the sort was encouraged.
“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.
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.
He is not speaking about all Mexicans, all immigrants, all illegal Mexican immigrants, or any other combination of words you feel like using
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.
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.
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