Comment by darkerside
5 years ago
As President, or any public figure, you are responsible not only for the intention of your words, but also every feasible interpretation of your words, as well as the impacts of your words, regardless of intention.
I say this not to imply that Trump didn't know that this statement could be taken in multiple ways, but to remind people that even if it can it doesn't matter. It's tragic this has happened, and also tragic to have a leader who reacts to the situation in this way, and that a large swath of the country applauds him for it.
Vague and menacing threats are much more thuggish behavior than emotional reaction to the killing of an unarmed civilian.
As for what Twitter is doing, I'm curious whether they follow this path to it's logical conclusion, which is, eventually Trump being banned from Twitter. He's a huge driver of traffic for them, but perhaps they're thinking about life after Trump at this point, months away from the election.
Every feasible interpretation? No way. That’s not gonna work. No one would be able to say anything. At best people would talk like ex Fed chair Greenspan. Undoable.
Yes, every feasible interpretation. That doesn't mean you can't say anything without multiple interpretations, but it _does_ mean that, if you are called on another interpretation of your words, then you spoke unclearly. You need to clarify your meaning and apologize if it was flagrant.
Yes, that is a lot of overhead for communicating. That's what I believe we should expect of our elected leaders. Sadly, nearly half of voting Americans don't seem to agree with me.
You think people are going to vote for that?
3 replies →
Please point me to something Obama said that could be interpreted as inciting deadly vigilante violence.
I’ll wait.
Why is that the metric?
3 replies →
He might spend his 2nd term without Twitter or he might follow-through on his vague threats of reforming social media
Vague and menacing threats are admittedly thuggish behavior, but I think it's hard to argue that it's more thuggish than burning down a police station.
I believe there’s a suitable MLK speech in which it explains property violence in response to human violence is an attempt to push the majority to action using loss of property when it is clear loss of life means nothing.
Given that it’s clear literal loss of life meant very little to people but property damage gets multiple multiple news coverage and POTUS coverage etc etc. it’s hard to consider burning down a police station when the police killed someone on camera to be completely improper. All attempts to appeal peacefully to the people who are supposed to deliver justice have failed, and in fact, those who are supposed to deliver justice have done the unjust thing...
If the protesters decide it's your neighborhood that needs to be burned down next, would you be okay with that?
9 replies →
Well of course it isn't "more thuggish." The use of "thug" was done on purpose. It is a known racist dog whistle. Trump's racist followers know exactly what he means when he says "These THUGS are..." They replace that with the n word. It's just as a society we don't allow them to say the n word any more, so they've replaced it with a myriad of dog whistles.
What I'm saying is that, in their minds, every single person in that mob is a "thug," and everything they're doing is (in your words) "thuggish."
But the mob of white folks in Charlottesville? Nothing thuggish there. That's just white folks protesting against being oppressed by minorities.
I would call any group of people who burns down a police station, or breaks into a Target and starts stealing stuff, thuggish. The mob of white folks in Charlottesville did not, as far as I know, do these things.
4 replies →
The previous president used “thug” to describe Baltimore rioters. Would you consider that racially charged?
https://historymusings.wordpress.com/2015/04/28/full-text-ob...
I didn’t vote for Trump, but it’s clear he’s referring to individuals and groups that are destroying areas of Minneapolis.
3 replies →
When I think of thugs, I think of premeditated stick ups, protection money rackets, and intimidation.
A riot is dangerous, unpredictable, and unwise (imo), but I wouldn't characterize it as thuggish. It's clear to me the reason that word was used was to appeal to his base, who are eager to put a label on these protestors as a way of dehumanizing them.
https://theconversation.com/thugs-is-a-race-code-word-that-f...
FWIW, even in the most far-right audiences I know of, I don't recall a single instance of people taking issue with the "rioters'" reactions against the police force.
I see a focus on the looting and destruction of private property that is unaffiliated with the police: a Target and an Autozone in particular. If anything, I'm seeing broad support for what's happening with regard to the MLPD.
This is not a simple partisan issue. Not even close.