"SEND HER BACK!" Will they defend this?

[JoeMorgue]

I thought we weren't feeding trolling arguments.

Is mocking trolling arguments really feeding them?

Near as I can tell at this point is only "feeding" the trolls when I talk to them, everybody else seems to be able to without getting the mother hen act.

I think some people are mistakenly thinking they are engaging the trolls on some functionally different level from other people.

 

[Upchurch]

Near as I can tell at this point is only "feeding" the trolls when I talk to them, everybody else seems to be able to without getting the mother hen act.

Perception and memory are funny, imperfect things. I admonished two other people* before you questioned the wisdom of not feeding trolls. Only then did I ever address you specifically** about the topic and, then, more of on a meta level.


* page 4
** page 5

 

[Armitage72]

Well, Trump would be the expert on disloyalty being as he's a filthy Russian whore.

He's also an expert on being weak and insecure.
Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

[jimbob]

If you take seriously the concept that inflammatory rhetoric can lead to violence, then AOCs rhetoric is a problem. But I don't think you do take it seriously. I think you only take it when it's convenient for your partisan interests.

The conditions in the camps is inhumane and not dissimilar to those of the Japanese internment camps during the second world war - when at least there was more reason to believe that there was a threat.

children in cages, no bedding, forced to sleep on concrete floors, no facilities for brushing their teeth, forcible separation from their parents
​

It's reasonable to call the camps what they are, which is concentration camps, of the model as introduced by the British in the Boer War and the Americans in WWII to inter Japanese Americans.

If AOC had called them "death camps" I would indeed say that would be inflammatory language. She hasn't.

Of course, for added fun, InfoWars promoted the completely imaginary "FEMA Death Camps" and Trump was perfectly happy with supporting them and receiving their support.
​

 

[Belz...]

Nowhere did I ever challenge the idea that 4 is greater than 2.

Not literally, obviously. But you called "speculation" the idea that in a proportional system, the larger group gets the say and the smaller group doesn't. I mean, that's exactly what "proportional" means, but there you have it.

Basically this entire exercise is you declaring we may not have this discussion any further unless we first agree that it will result in crushing the rural people under our callous urban boots.

Say what?

We're discussing a statement by another poster which I've addressed. Who the hell said we can't "have this discussion any further" until this is resolved? Did you miss the part where I was arguing with theprestige and Ziggurat that the statement was clearly racist?

This is at least the third time in this discussion where you've stepped right into the Twilight Zone and pretended that things have unfolded completely differently than what happened in reality. You've either got your wires crossed or you're so combative that you can't tell your 'opponents' apart.

 

[phiwum]

I already made that response

Farting is rude, crude and socially unacceptable.

Let's leave the racism issue aside. At the least, this is a matter of xenophobia. Trump has more or less suggested that immigrants (whether citizens or not) and children of immigrants (and children of Puerto Rico and maybe African Americans) should not criticize the U.S and the president. They should go back to where they "came from".

This is rather more concerning than merely socially unacceptable. These are not folk who come here and take advantage of the U.S. while complaining and doing nothing. Omar is contributing. She's an elected representative. She's working on changing things for the better (as she sees it), not destroying the nation.

Even when we disagree with our political opponents, we should see that it is almost always a difference of opinion about how to best benefit the nation. Rarely will we find someone working to destroy our nation. Even Trump doesn't hate America. He perhaps cares less than he pretends with all the flag humping, but he's not out to destroy the nation. He is at worst indifferent to its long-term welfare, more interested in his own personal benefit.

 

[Belz...]

If you take seriously the concept that inflammatory rhetoric can lead to violence, then AOCs rhetoric is a problem.

That may be the case. But do you really think calling these places concentration camps can reasonably be expected to incite violence? And how do you think it compares to Trump calling these same persons anti-American and vile and somesuch? Isn't that a whole lot more dangerous?

 

[angrysoba]

I already made that response

That's a ridiculous response. Three of them were born in the United States. Why is he telling them to "go back" when that's where they are from?

And as for your claim that Trump has to appeal to the basest motives of his supporters, that doesn't even reach the level of a try, let alone a nice one.

 

[Foolmewunz]

If you take seriously the concept that inflammatory rhetoric can lead to violence, then AOCs rhetoric is a problem. But I don't think you do take it seriously. I think you only take it when it's convenient for your partisan interests.

You'll be able to show me:

A) Where AOC has said something actually exhorting violence.
B) Where I've approved it.

Of course, you will, but you'll find some obvious nitpick that you can turn into a "You first!" distraction and penalize me for not being kind and helpful in showing that your arguments are pitiful and painfully partisan.

Hint: Calling a concentration camp a concentration camp is not an exhortation to violence. It is accurate reporting.

 

[Trebuchet]

Snip...
If AOC had called them "death camps" I would indeed say that would be inflammatory language. She hasn't.
Snip...

Which is not to say no one has died in them, because they have.

 

[johnny karate]

If you take seriously the concept that inflammatory rhetoric can lead to violence, then AOCs rhetoric is a problem. But I don't think you do take it seriously. I think you only take it when it's convenient for your partisan interests.

I'd like to thank Zig for lowering the bar on what qualifies as violence-provoking inflammatory rhetoric, thus making it that much easier to demonstrate just how much the Right embraces violence, a task that was already laughably easy.

*Post bookmarked*

 

[jimbob]

Snip...
If AOC had called them "death camps" I would indeed say that would be inflammatory language. She hasn't.
Snip...

Which is not to say no one has died in them, because they have.

True, unlike the FEMA Death Camps that InfoWars promoted, during the 2016 campaign, and Trump (then and after his inauguration) was happy to endorse Alex Jones.

That's the thing about being a Trump apologist; if one has something that could have the slightest validity as a criticism of his opponents, he, or his supporters, will have done something along those lines but worse and utterly clear-cut, with his approval​

 

[Ziggurat]

That may be the case. But do you really think calling these places concentration camps can reasonably be expected to incite violence? And how do you think it compares to Trump calling these same persons anti-American and vile and somesuch? Isn't that a whole lot more dangerous?

Why do you think it's more dangerous? So far, we've had violence against CBP. We haven't had violence against the squad.

Its possible that Trump could inspire violence with what he said, and it's also possible that AOC could inspire further violence with hers. But we're dealing with the statistics of small numbers here. We can't get reliable statistics. And any analysis based on some principles of how speech affects actions is going to be subject to the biases of whoever is doing that analysis.

And at some point, we have to accept that crazy people are dangerous, and can be inspired to violence by just about anything. The Giffords shooter was motivated be the belief that grammar was a government mind control plot, although Palin was unfairly blamed for it. Absent actual calls for violence, we have to allow criticism, even when it's over the top of inflammatory. We can't clamp down of criticism because of hypothetical violence. It won't work, and it won't be applied fairly. There's room to criticize what Trump said without having to appeal to this hypothetical threat.

 

[johnny karate]

Police officer non-hypothetically threatens Ocasio-Cortez.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but it sounds bad - do you want some smelling salts?

 

[phiwum]

Why do you think it's more dangerous? So far, we've had violence against CBP. We haven't had violence against the squad.

A bizarre comparison.

Trump's statements strongly suggest that immigrant citizens, children of immigrants and maybe African Americans[1] should not criticize the U.S. or him. They should instead go back where they came from. This, to folk elected to Congress, whose job includes calling for changes and improvements to the government.

Even if Trump's rhetoric leads to no literal violence, it is terrible for the good of the nation. Omar is a citizen and has every right to criticize the government. Indeed, she has a right to hate the U.S., not that there is any reason to believe she does. The same is true for the remainder of the squad. They are full-fledged citizens and indeed representatives of their districts. Yet Trump is echoing the Know-Nothings of old (not my observation, comes from a WaPo editorial), strongly suggesting that they have no right to speak freely about the faults of the U.S. or the president.

Now, frankly, I believe that Trump's words will lead to negative effects. Others will feel emboldened to visible bigotry to those appearing foreign. Real violence may occur as well, but you will dismiss it as just a crazy guy who woulda been crazy anyway.


[1] He's dropped down to three congresspersons lately, so maybe he realizes that Pressley isn't remotely an immigrant and she's off the list. Or maybe he can't count. Or whatever.

 

[phiwum]

Police officer non-hypothetically threatens Ocasio-Cortez.

To be fair, the chief didn't think it was a serious threat.

Lawson said he does not think the comment constitutes an actual threat, but it appears to violate the department's social media policy, which he said all officers have read and signed.

I think he's right. It's inflammatory speech. The cop wasn't suggesting that he would shoot AOC. I'm not sure, but it may be protected speech.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Threats of physical harm and intimidation are violent.

They violate a person's freedom to engage in lawful actions and maintain their beliefs without repression.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My use of "essentially" should be a hint that it's not actually zero. ....

Sounds like Trump's Twitter response team.

The worst part of this is that you got your feathers in a ruffle because we didn't read your mind.

And it still means you didn't respond when I asked you, so then doesn't that mean the people in the populated states have zero representation?

As for not saying it was OK, if it's not OK for either side, then then what was your point? Still trying to educate us about the EC?

 

[phiwum]

Threats of physical harm and intimidation are violent.

They violate a person's freedom to engage in lawful actions and maintain their beliefs without repression.

This was a Facebook post on a private page, viewable by Friends and Friends of Friends. I don't as intimidation.

Grossly inappropriate, sure. Worth firing him over? Probably, though I'm not sure how social media policies and the First Amendment interact.

It was a terrible thing to write. I've probably said in private conversations that someone I find foolish or dangerous "oughta be shot". No one would've thought I was threatening or intimidating anyone.