4 ms·

You can of course argue that a plain reading of this words is not enough, and that he encouraged the violence without explicitly stating so. But you have to ac

You can of course argue that a plain reading of this words is not enough, and that he encouraged the violence without explicitly stating so. But you have to acknowledge that interpreting is what you are doing - no "this is obviously the truth and alternative facts have no place" as has become so popular. You'll need to accept the opposing view point as valid and engage with it.

pplante 6y ago
I've watched the recordings a number of times. I am aware that he didn't explicitly say to storm the Capital, however he plays the crowd. There had been a lot of individuals and groups discussing actions since November. I would be shocked to know that the campaign had no knowledge of these threats/plans in the Facebook groups and Parler posts.
latexr 6y ago
> But you have to acknowledge that interpreting is what you are doing And interpreting is what the people who stormed the capitol did. If you know you’re going to be scrutinised by your words, choosing them carefully becomes paramount—you’ll want to make sure you send the message across while being able to deny it, and the people who the message is targeted to understand and accept the compromise. If you always consider only the words, you’ll be weaselled out. You have to consider not everyone is acting in good faith. > You can of course argue that a plain reading of this words is not enough The people who stormed the capitol might agree. In this case, a well-established pattern of behaviour forces one to consider the intention behind the words and not just the words themselves. A lot of people acted in unison on a specific interpretation of those words, with consequences the speaker is aware of and (as far as I’m aware) didn’t admonish. In sum: both sides agree on the interpretation of these words and the person who wrote them is aware of it and didn’t offer any clarification. Thus far, everything indicates the interpretation is correct.
- nailer 6y ago
  > And interpreting is what the people who stormed the capitol did. Trump tacitly telling people to enter the building is one possible explanation. The other could be that they were very angry.
megameter 6y ago
In my mind, the question is whether this is a speech that I would have to ban someone for on a forum, as a CM. And my answer would be yes, it is ban-worthy, because it isn't going to lead to a productive discussion of grievances. Especially within the context of a poster who has been making the same attack across hundreds of threads, willing to lie and exaggerate repeatedly along the way. Now, I can hear the free speech brigade on this one, so that should be addressed too. It happens to be the case that members of the armed forces are in a separate category with respect to their 1st Amendment rights. Given that the President is commander in chief of the military, he sits in a place where his speech is of at least the same consequence as a general. Using that speech to interfere with the processes of the US Government, even if credible claims are made, poses a threat to the nation as a whole. What does he expect to happen? Is it for everyone else to say "Oh, gee, I guess you're right after all, let's do the election over?" If the process is corrupt, but you believe in the system as a whole, you aim to fix it on the next cycle, not instigate a crisis after losing.
Jeema101 6y ago
Just my opinion, but I think this may be most problematic quote from the speech: "The radical left knows exactly what they're doing. They're ruthless, and it's time that somebody did something about it" Seems like it would depend on exactly what the president intended that to mean.
krapp 6y ago
> You'll need to accept the opposing view point as valid and engage with it. And so will they. They refuse to believe Trump has any complicity at all for the effect of his rhetoric or the ways his language can be interpreted, because he didn't give explicitly say "go murder that priest," just "will someone rid me of this turbulent priest."

pplante 6y ago

I've watched the recordings a number of times. I am aware that he didn't explicitly say to storm the Capital, however he plays the crowd. There had been a lot of individuals and groups discussing actions since November. I would be shocked to know that the campaign had no knowledge of these threats/plans in the Facebook groups and Parler posts.

latexr 6y ago

> But you have to acknowledge that interpreting is what you are doing And interpreting is what the people who stormed the capitol did. If you know you’re going to be scrutinised by your words, choosing them carefully becomes paramount—you’ll want to make sure you send the message across while being able to deny it, and the people who the message is targeted to understand and accept the compromise. If you always consider only the words, you’ll be weaselled out. You have to consider not everyone is acting in good faith. > You can of course argue that a plain reading of this words is not enough The people who stormed the capitol might agree. In this case, a well-established pattern of behaviour forces one to consider the intention behind the words and not just the words themselves. A lot of people acted in unison on a specific interpretation of those words, with consequences the speaker is aware of and (as far as I’m aware) didn’t admonish. In sum: both sides agree on the interpretation of these words and the person who wrote them is aware of it and didn’t offer any clarification. Thus far, everything indicates the interpretation is correct.

nailer 6y ago
> And interpreting is what the people who stormed the capitol did. Trump tacitly telling people to enter the building is one possible explanation. The other could be that they were very angry.

megameter 6y ago

In my mind, the question is whether this is a speech that I would have to ban someone for on a forum, as a CM. And my answer would be yes, it is ban-worthy, because it isn't going to lead to a productive discussion of grievances. Especially within the context of a poster who has been making the same attack across hundreds of threads, willing to lie and exaggerate repeatedly along the way. Now, I can hear the free speech brigade on this one, so that should be addressed too. It happens to be the case that members of the armed forces are in a separate category with respect to their 1st Amendment rights. Given that the President is commander in chief of the military, he sits in a place where his speech is of at least the same consequence as a general. Using that speech to interfere with the processes of the US Government, even if credible claims are made, poses a threat to the nation as a whole. What does he expect to happen? Is it for everyone else to say "Oh, gee, I guess you're right after all, let's do the election over?" If the process is corrupt, but you believe in the system as a whole, you aim to fix it on the next cycle, not instigate a crisis after losing.

Jeema101 6y ago

Just my opinion, but I think this may be most problematic quote from the speech: "The radical left knows exactly what they're doing. They're ruthless, and it's time that somebody did something about it" Seems like it would depend on exactly what the president intended that to mean.

krapp 6y ago

> You'll need to accept the opposing view point as valid and engage with it. And so will they. They refuse to believe Trump has any complicity at all for the effect of his rhetoric or the ways his language can be interpreted, because he didn't give explicitly say "go murder that priest," just "will someone rid me of this turbulent priest."