4 ms·

That last sentence in your post is an incorrect assumption and isn't true. Also wearing a hat is not the same as speech. All this offense before understanding

That last sentence in your post is an incorrect assumption and isn't true. Also wearing a hat is not the same as speech. All this offense before understanding and flinging crazy associations around does nothing but cause more divide.

pera 7y ago
> That last sentence in your post is an incorrect assumption and isn't true. I believe you have misread that last sentence as I didn't make any sort of assumption. > Also wearing a hat is not the same as speech. I never said that, but wearing an iconic hat created, used, and sold by a person who said what I previously quoted can obviously be interpreted as supporting such speech. This however, as I have already said, is not my personal view. Could you clarify what "crazy associations" I made?
- manigandham 7y ago
  > "someone who believes that your ethnicity implies you are, most likely, a criminal" > "believes I am a rapist based on my ethnicity" This is your assumption. Nobody said this. Nobody believes this. The stretched association is then calling anyone who wears a hat to also be a supporter of this incorrect assumption. That's the problem. It's creating outrage against a made-up position that nobody holds.
  - pera 7y ago
    You are clearly misreading what I wrote, please read it again: I do not believe that all people who wears a MAGA hat believes in those ideas, what I said is that many people do (since that's the sort of rhetoric Trump often uses). > Nobody said this Yes, Trump said that Mexican immigrants bring drugs and crime, that's literally what he stated in that speech. In a similar fashion he also wanted "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering" the US: https://web.archive.org/web/20151208051322/https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration https://web.archive.org/web/20151208051322/https://www.donal... It is extremely disingenuous though to say that "nobody" who wears that hat associates Mexican immigrants (and other demographics) with crime.
    - Sacho 7y ago
      The statements you are making now are already retreating from your initial position. "Bringing in drugs and crime" is not equivalent to "every immigrant is a criminal", which was your initial interpretation. I think it's reasonable to disagree with Trump on matters of degree and relevance, but not to wholly twist his statements or rely on divining his state of mind. One, his statement is not qualified wrt other populations. A strong defense against a similar statement about immigrants in Germany was that the crime level of immigrant populations was of a similar magnitude to natives. Trump's argument could easily be challenged the same way. The second way would be relevance. It's trivially true that some of the immigrants may bring in crime. Is this important to the discussion? Many decisions have adverse consequences but are still taken as a measure of overall good or moral fortitude. An example would be giving free speech to people with reprehensible ideas - while it may lead to offense and actual harm, it is argued as both a net positive good and a show of moral fortitude, that the societ is secure enough in its beliefs that it ia willing to entertain arguments striking against its core. Similarly, one could argue that Mexican immigrants bring in a net positive(it is a common trope that they are hardworking and willing to take on otherwise undesirable jobs). You could also argue that American society should have(within reason) the fortitude to accept immigrants and give them a chance to integrate and enjoy the benefits of Amercian society. You don't need to strawman Trump to argue against his rhetoric. By far Trump's strongest political weapon has been to bait people into emotional outrage and theb turn around and use that as ammo.
      - pera 7y ago
        I am not retreating my initial position. It would be generous if instead of just accusing me of doing so, you could point out what exactly made you believe that. > "every immigrant is a criminal", which was your initial interpretation If by "every immigrant" you meant "every Mexican immigrant" then yes, that was sort of (and still is) my interpretation: to say that Mexican immigrants bring drugs is equivalent to say Mexican immigrants are criminals. I beg anyone who disagrees with this interpretation to clearly state why. I honestly want to understand how else the aforementioned speech could be interpreted.
        7y ago

pera 7y ago

> That last sentence in your post is an incorrect assumption and isn't true. I believe you have misread that last sentence as I didn't make any sort of assumption. > Also wearing a hat is not the same as speech. I never said that, but wearing an iconic hat created, used, and sold by a person who said what I previously quoted can obviously be interpreted as supporting such speech. This however, as I have already said, is not my personal view. Could you clarify what "crazy associations" I made?

manigandham 7y ago
> "someone who believes that your ethnicity implies you are, most likely, a criminal" > "believes I am a rapist based on my ethnicity" This is your assumption. Nobody said this. Nobody believes this. The stretched association is then calling anyone who wears a hat to also be a supporter of this incorrect assumption. That's the problem. It's creating outrage against a made-up position that nobody holds.
- pera 7y ago
  You are clearly misreading what I wrote, please read it again: I do not believe that all people who wears a MAGA hat believes in those ideas, what I said is that many people do (since that's the sort of rhetoric Trump often uses). > Nobody said this Yes, Trump said that Mexican immigrants bring drugs and crime, that's literally what he stated in that speech. In a similar fashion he also wanted "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering" the US: https://web.archive.org/web/20151208051322/https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration https://web.archive.org/web/20151208051322/https://www.donal... It is extremely disingenuous though to say that "nobody" who wears that hat associates Mexican immigrants (and other demographics) with crime.
  - Sacho 7y ago
    The statements you are making now are already retreating from your initial position. "Bringing in drugs and crime" is not equivalent to "every immigrant is a criminal", which was your initial interpretation. I think it's reasonable to disagree with Trump on matters of degree and relevance, but not to wholly twist his statements or rely on divining his state of mind. One, his statement is not qualified wrt other populations. A strong defense against a similar statement about immigrants in Germany was that the crime level of immigrant populations was of a similar magnitude to natives. Trump's argument could easily be challenged the same way. The second way would be relevance. It's trivially true that some of the immigrants may bring in crime. Is this important to the discussion? Many decisions have adverse consequences but are still taken as a measure of overall good or moral fortitude. An example would be giving free speech to people with reprehensible ideas - while it may lead to offense and actual harm, it is argued as both a net positive good and a show of moral fortitude, that the societ is secure enough in its beliefs that it ia willing to entertain arguments striking against its core. Similarly, one could argue that Mexican immigrants bring in a net positive(it is a common trope that they are hardworking and willing to take on otherwise undesirable jobs). You could also argue that American society should have(within reason) the fortitude to accept immigrants and give them a chance to integrate and enjoy the benefits of Amercian society. You don't need to strawman Trump to argue against his rhetoric. By far Trump's strongest political weapon has been to bait people into emotional outrage and theb turn around and use that as ammo.
    - pera 7y ago
      I am not retreating my initial position. It would be generous if instead of just accusing me of doing so, you could point out what exactly made you believe that. > "every immigrant is a criminal", which was your initial interpretation If by "every immigrant" you meant "every Mexican immigrant" then yes, that was sort of (and still is) my interpretation: to say that Mexican immigrants bring drugs is equivalent to say Mexican immigrants are criminals. I beg anyone who disagrees with this interpretation to clearly state why. I honestly want to understand how else the aforementioned speech could be interpreted.
      - 7y ago