3 ms·

> 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 assump

by 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.
      - babaokeefe 7y ago
        he was talking about illegal immigrants, per reports by border patrol. this was in the original statement, and the "unbiased" "respectable" media reported that Trump called all Mexicans rapists. border patrol gives pregnancy tests to girls 10 and up when they arrive, due to the high prevalence of rape among illegal migrants. The rape victims are Mexican women and children. he has said this many times as well. Antitrump folks also like to ignore sex traffic, presumably because it's politically expedient to let those women suffer. the recent peak in apprehensions is 140,000 in a month. border patrol estimates they catch 1/3 of border crossers. if 1% of that population is rapists, that's a whole lot of rapists. you can remain wilfully ignorant of what was said and what was meant if you so choose, but at least be quiet about your opinions that disagree with readily verifiable facts.
      - RobertVilla 7y ago
        Well, lets look at the exact quote that you are referencing. "When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." I got this from RealClearPolitics and I'll ignore the fact that they quoted it as "they're" instead of "their", even though those words sound identical when spoken. His very next sentence is "And some, I assume, are good people." So my interpretation is that Trump believes that a disproportionate number of the people illegally crossing the US Mexico border are involved in drug or human trafficking, but some are just people trying to find a better life. I think Trump is a very poor orator and is kind of dumb, so this didn't come off very well and I can see why people were offended by it, but it is also not fair to leave out the context of his very next sentence when it refutes your agenda.

by pera 7y ago

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.
    - babaokeefe 7y ago
      he was talking about illegal immigrants, per reports by border patrol. this was in the original statement, and the "unbiased" "respectable" media reported that Trump called all Mexicans rapists. border patrol gives pregnancy tests to girls 10 and up when they arrive, due to the high prevalence of rape among illegal migrants. The rape victims are Mexican women and children. he has said this many times as well. Antitrump folks also like to ignore sex traffic, presumably because it's politically expedient to let those women suffer. the recent peak in apprehensions is 140,000 in a month. border patrol estimates they catch 1/3 of border crossers. if 1% of that population is rapists, that's a whole lot of rapists. you can remain wilfully ignorant of what was said and what was meant if you so choose, but at least be quiet about your opinions that disagree with readily verifiable facts.
    - RobertVilla 7y ago
      Well, lets look at the exact quote that you are referencing. "When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." I got this from RealClearPolitics and I'll ignore the fact that they quoted it as "they're" instead of "their", even though those words sound identical when spoken. His very next sentence is "And some, I assume, are good people." So my interpretation is that Trump believes that a disproportionate number of the people illegally crossing the US Mexico border are involved in drug or human trafficking, but some are just people trying to find a better life. I think Trump is a very poor orator and is kind of dumb, so this didn't come off very well and I can see why people were offended by it, but it is also not fair to leave out the context of his very next sentence when it refutes your agenda.