3 ms·

Stop straw manning what I said. That speech was written and was trying to accomplish a goal. Ignoring that public speaking is intended to influence people is li

Stop straw manning what I said. That speech was written and was trying to accomplish a goal. Ignoring that public speaking is intended to influence people is like pretending that his words didn't matter at all. He mentioned being peaceful once, but then suggested that the nation was being stolen from them and that they should be patriots and fight back.

koolba 5y ago
> Stop straw manning what I said. It's not a straw man. You explicit said "... if not straight calls to violence by using words like "fight."". I listed out every instance of him using that word as well as it's conjugations. I'll ask again, which of those instances do you claim is so egregious? > That speech was written and was trying to accomplish a goal. Ignoring that public speaking is intended to influence people is like pretending that his words didn't matter at all. Every speech is intended to influence people. That's literally the point of public speaking. He also repeatedly mentions that the audience should see if their elected officials are "fighting for them" and, if not, choose different ones the next chance they get. > He mentioned being peaceful once, but then suggested that the nation was being stolen from them and that they should be patriots and fight back. Again, where does he say that "fighting back" involves anything that resembles violence? The phrase, "fight back" is one of the most clichéd expressions in politics. Every politician says it during every election cycle.*
- invisible 5y ago
  Using the words "if not" in English in this manner indicates that it is a further extreme than the preceding portion of the sentence (and not strictly a matter of fact). There is a spectrum there, obviously, and I could argue for specific instance of him using "fight" as being sketchy, but really that he used the term over a dozen times is striking to me. Connecting patriotism and fighting alongside the election being stolen from them had a message that more action than usual was necessary. That was the underlying message. He used a lot of euphemisms, and I think there is some evidence there that he knew the message he was sending to the crowd. Patriot: a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors. Fight: take part in a violent struggle involving the exchange of physical blows or the use of weapons. Steal: take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.
  - koolba 5y ago
    > There is a spectrum there, obviously, and I could argue for specific instance of him using "fight" as being sketchy, but really that he used the term over a dozen times is striking to me. You called out using that term as the strongest indicator of his intent to incite yet you continue to refuse to pick out a specific example of it. > Connecting patriotism and fighting alongside the election being stolen from them had a message that more action than usual was necessary. That was the underlying message. None of that is inciting violence. There are millions of Americans that believe there were actions during the recent election that were fraudulent. There’s nothing violent about voicing such concerns. It’s been done in just about every election since the dawn of Democracy. Nancy Pelosi herself is on the record, on video, rejecting the outcome of a Presidential election. And she has just as much right to voice her concerns as Trump or anyone else. > He used a lot of euphemisms, and I think there is some evidence there that he knew the message he was sending to the crowd. That’s totally subjective and totally conjecture. If that’s going to be the standard for banishing someone from the internet then the kangaroo court of the Facebook Oversight Board is perfectly fitting.
    - invisible 5y ago
      I actually just called "fight" (and words like it) out as one of the things (using the term "like" to imply this) not the strongest indicator. He also made assertions that the country was being stolen from those people, that this was their last chance to do anything about it before the downfall of the country, that the crowd couldn't be weak, that the whole thing was illegal, that conceding isn't an option, and that the enemy (Democrats) were to blame. You're picking my selection of the word "fight" as a straw man that you keep attacking as if he wasn't whipping them up with tribalism and violent symbolism immediately before they marched on the Capitol building. He scheduled the speech nearby so that they would march on the Capitol building (it's literally in his speech). Others have spent time detailing this out[0]. Again, he picked many words and phrases that he used to convey to the crowd that this was a time for _action_. If he wasn't aware that crowd was going to react to his words with action, then that'd make him pretty dense. I think I've exhaustively gotten the point across that using the term "fight" in a speech isn't the problem. If you want to whack it again, go for it. 0: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/annotated-trump-speech-jan-6-capitol/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/ann...

koolba 5y ago

> Stop straw manning what I said. It's not a straw man. You explicit said "... if not straight calls to violence by using words like "fight."". I listed out every instance of him using that word as well as it's conjugations. I'll ask again, which of those instances do you claim is so egregious? > That speech was written and was trying to accomplish a goal. Ignoring that public speaking is intended to influence people is like pretending that his words didn't matter at all. Every speech is intended to influence people. That's literally the point of public speaking. He also repeatedly mentions that the audience should see if their elected officials are "fighting for them" and, if not, choose different ones the next chance they get. > He mentioned being peaceful once, but then suggested that the nation was being stolen from them and that they should be patriots and fight back. Again, where does he say that "fighting back" involves anything that resembles violence? The phrase, "fight back" is one of the most clichéd expressions in politics. Every politician says it during every election cycle.*

invisible 5y ago
Using the words "if not" in English in this manner indicates that it is a further extreme than the preceding portion of the sentence (and not strictly a matter of fact). There is a spectrum there, obviously, and I could argue for specific instance of him using "fight" as being sketchy, but really that he used the term over a dozen times is striking to me. Connecting patriotism and fighting alongside the election being stolen from them had a message that more action than usual was necessary. That was the underlying message. He used a lot of euphemisms, and I think there is some evidence there that he knew the message he was sending to the crowd. Patriot: a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors. Fight: take part in a violent struggle involving the exchange of physical blows or the use of weapons. Steal: take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.
- koolba 5y ago
  > There is a spectrum there, obviously, and I could argue for specific instance of him using "fight" as being sketchy, but really that he used the term over a dozen times is striking to me. You called out using that term as the strongest indicator of his intent to incite yet you continue to refuse to pick out a specific example of it. > Connecting patriotism and fighting alongside the election being stolen from them had a message that more action than usual was necessary. That was the underlying message. None of that is inciting violence. There are millions of Americans that believe there were actions during the recent election that were fraudulent. There’s nothing violent about voicing such concerns. It’s been done in just about every election since the dawn of Democracy. Nancy Pelosi herself is on the record, on video, rejecting the outcome of a Presidential election. And she has just as much right to voice her concerns as Trump or anyone else. > He used a lot of euphemisms, and I think there is some evidence there that he knew the message he was sending to the crowd. That’s totally subjective and totally conjecture. If that’s going to be the standard for banishing someone from the internet then the kangaroo court of the Facebook Oversight Board is perfectly fitting.
  - invisible 5y ago
    I actually just called "fight" (and words like it) out as one of the things (using the term "like" to imply this) not the strongest indicator. He also made assertions that the country was being stolen from those people, that this was their last chance to do anything about it before the downfall of the country, that the crowd couldn't be weak, that the whole thing was illegal, that conceding isn't an option, and that the enemy (Democrats) were to blame. You're picking my selection of the word "fight" as a straw man that you keep attacking as if he wasn't whipping them up with tribalism and violent symbolism immediately before they marched on the Capitol building. He scheduled the speech nearby so that they would march on the Capitol building (it's literally in his speech). Others have spent time detailing this out[0]. Again, he picked many words and phrases that he used to convey to the crowd that this was a time for _action_. If he wasn't aware that crowd was going to react to his words with action, then that'd make him pretty dense. I think I've exhaustively gotten the point across that using the term "fight" in a speech isn't the problem. If you want to whack it again, go for it. 0: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/annotated-trump-speech-jan-6-capitol/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/ann...