7 ms·

You're aware that a lot of people are upset about the sentiment expressed and not the word used to express it, correct?

chiefalchemist 9y ago
You're aware that the alleged sentiment of a word pales in comparison to actual actions that need no bias interpretation in order to be upsetting to anyone with a moral compass, correct? Put another way: Stick and stones and MIC drones are breaking non-white bones and you're worried about the alleged sentimate of a word? Turn off the MSM and get a new less rose coloured filter.
- totalZero 9y ago
  What does your argument even mean? I'm reading it as "since there are drone strikes, it is not worth criticizing an American president for referring to poorer nations as 'shitholes'." Why can't you say "we want fewer drone strikes, and also more dignified and respectable leaders"? How are the two issues of drones and Trump's foul comment linked in any way?
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    Perhaps you need to get back to my original comment and then drill down. The "sentiment" is obvious. I see no reason to repeat what was already stating the obvious. In short: Actions speak louder than words. And if "shithole" is going to raise a ruckus, then where is the ruckus for the shitholes our actions are creating? Why is there silence for death and outrage for a word? How is that not hypocritical? The fact that you're wanting to push back only reaffirms my point. That is: We. Are. Lost. And at the mercy of a compass-less MSM. I hope that helps. Issue closed.
tux1968 9y ago
Isn't the sentiment expressed by that word essentially "country with a lot of problems"? Is it much worse than saying "ours is the best country in the world"? Both are pretty insulting.
- CocaKoala 9y ago
  The sentiment expressed by the word is essentially "country with a lot of problems", yes. But the sentiment expressed by the statement as a whole is "We don't want people from those countries, we don't want to help them, we don't want them to access the American Dream. Despite our part in screwing up the world, we're not interesting in putting forth effort to help the people who have gotten screwed". And the "we" in that statement is Trump, who speaks for the nation as its president.
  - tux1968 9y ago
    There is a plausible alternative motivation of wanting to protect the American Dream (for those already here in the country) rather than an evil desire to deny it to others. Of course reasonable people can disagree on the degree of the threat posed by immigration. But you have to admit that if every person on earth moved to America overnight, life as we know it would be changed for the worse forever. Therefore it is reasonable to question where on the scale from 0% to 100% of the world population should be welcomed with open arms at the border. And it's not a huge leap to go from that question to the idea that not every single applicant for admittance poses the same threat (if any) as another -- so some discrimination between them is not only logical, but just. If you accept the above conclusion, then it's quite possible for that word he used to be a reasonable idea expressed in an uncharitable manner.
    - CocaKoala 9y ago
      I don't quite understand your argument here. You posit that a reasonable position on immigration for America is that we should not have one hundred percent open borders, welcome all comers. And furthermore, since a reasonable position is that we should not welcome all comers, whoever they may be, we obviously need some way to establish who in particular is welcome, and who in particular is not. I agree with you as far as that goes. But then you go further to say that it's possible that Trump was trying to express the position you just described, albeit in an uncharitable and rude way, and that's where you lose me. It's possible that you could theorize a hypothetical person who expresses that sentiment in that manner, but is that hypothetical person Donald Trump, with all the context of his previous comments and decisions? Because we're not talking about a hypothetical here, we're talking about actual sentiments expressed by an actual person, with a history racial insensitivity (to put it lightly) and heavy-handed bans that have no legal basis (again, to put it lightly). It's not meaningful to come up with hypotheticals unless you attribute that hypothetical to Trump, and attributing this one to him means that it needs to be squared with his previous actions and positions. In my opinion, it seems fantastically unlikely that he was trying to express your position; if you believe differently, I'd be interested in your reasoning.

You're aware that the alleged sentiment of a word pales in comparison to actual actions that need no bias interpretation in order to be upsetting to anyone with a moral compass, correct? Put another way: Stick and stones and MIC drones are breaking non-white bones and you're worried about the alleged sentimate of a word? Turn off the MSM and get a new less rose coloured filter.

totalZero 9y ago
What does your argument even mean? I'm reading it as "since there are drone strikes, it is not worth criticizing an American president for referring to poorer nations as 'shitholes'." Why can't you say "we want fewer drone strikes, and also more dignified and respectable leaders"? How are the two issues of drones and Trump's foul comment linked in any way?
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  Perhaps you need to get back to my original comment and then drill down. The "sentiment" is obvious. I see no reason to repeat what was already stating the obvious. In short: Actions speak louder than words. And if "shithole" is going to raise a ruckus, then where is the ruckus for the shitholes our actions are creating? Why is there silence for death and outrage for a word? How is that not hypocritical? The fact that you're wanting to push back only reaffirms my point. That is: We. Are. Lost. And at the mercy of a compass-less MSM. I hope that helps. Issue closed.

tux1968 9y ago

Isn't the sentiment expressed by that word essentially "country with a lot of problems"? Is it much worse than saying "ours is the best country in the world"? Both are pretty insulting.

CocaKoala 9y ago
The sentiment expressed by the word is essentially "country with a lot of problems", yes. But the sentiment expressed by the statement as a whole is "We don't want people from those countries, we don't want to help them, we don't want them to access the American Dream. Despite our part in screwing up the world, we're not interesting in putting forth effort to help the people who have gotten screwed". And the "we" in that statement is Trump, who speaks for the nation as its president.
- tux1968 9y ago
  There is a plausible alternative motivation of wanting to protect the American Dream (for those already here in the country) rather than an evil desire to deny it to others. Of course reasonable people can disagree on the degree of the threat posed by immigration. But you have to admit that if every person on earth moved to America overnight, life as we know it would be changed for the worse forever. Therefore it is reasonable to question where on the scale from 0% to 100% of the world population should be welcomed with open arms at the border. And it's not a huge leap to go from that question to the idea that not every single applicant for admittance poses the same threat (if any) as another -- so some discrimination between them is not only logical, but just. If you accept the above conclusion, then it's quite possible for that word he used to be a reasonable idea expressed in an uncharitable manner.
  - CocaKoala 9y ago
    I don't quite understand your argument here. You posit that a reasonable position on immigration for America is that we should not have one hundred percent open borders, welcome all comers. And furthermore, since a reasonable position is that we should not welcome all comers, whoever they may be, we obviously need some way to establish who in particular is welcome, and who in particular is not. I agree with you as far as that goes. But then you go further to say that it's possible that Trump was trying to express the position you just described, albeit in an uncharitable and rude way, and that's where you lose me. It's possible that you could theorize a hypothetical person who expresses that sentiment in that manner, but is that hypothetical person Donald Trump, with all the context of his previous comments and decisions? Because we're not talking about a hypothetical here, we're talking about actual sentiments expressed by an actual person, with a history racial insensitivity (to put it lightly) and heavy-handed bans that have no legal basis (again, to put it lightly). It's not meaningful to come up with hypotheticals unless you attribute that hypothetical to Trump, and attributing this one to him means that it needs to be squared with his previous actions and positions. In my opinion, it seems fantastically unlikely that he was trying to express your position; if you believe differently, I'd be interested in your reasoning.