4 ms·

> 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 ev

by koolba 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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...
    - nec4b 6y ago
      Can you actually provide an example or not? So far you are only repeating your conjectures without citing from the actual speech.
      - invisible 6y ago
        An example of what exactly? That his speech contained a bunch of euphemisms and some of them may have been taken as calls to violence? Do you expect me to provide a clear example of him telling folks go harm congress members? We can all agree he didn't say any direct quotes like that. I did link to a full article that contained highlights for things that I'd consider euphemisms. Here are a few (not even all of them): - "... these people are not going to take it any longer, they’re not going to take it any longer." - "... to see our election victory stolen by bold and radical left Democrats. ... We will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved. ... We will not take it anymore, and that is what this is all about. .. We’re just not going to let that happen." - "We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. And we’re going to have to fight much harder." - "... Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness." - "Well, I would say yes, it does, because the Constitution says you have to protect our country, and you have to protect our Constitution, and you can’t vote on fraud, and fraud breaks up everything, doesn’t it? When you catch somebody in a fraud, you are allowed to go by very different rules." - "Looking out at all of the amazing patriots here today, I have never been more confident in our nation’s future." - "But I said something is wrong here, something is really wrong, can’t have happened, and we fight. We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore." The crowd was literally chanting "fight for Trump" during the speech before they went and...surprise... fought for Trump. Then after, he tweeted a video and some text: - "... Stay peaceful!" - "No violence!" - "We had an election that was stolen from us. ... We have to have peace. ... I know how you feel." - "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!" So yeah, he called for peace after rallying the crowd to fight for him. At the same time, he was saying that it was justified and that he feels the same way as the folks rioting.

by koolba 6y ago

invisible 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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...
  - nec4b 6y ago
    Can you actually provide an example or not? So far you are only repeating your conjectures without citing from the actual speech.
    - invisible 6y ago
      An example of what exactly? That his speech contained a bunch of euphemisms and some of them may have been taken as calls to violence? Do you expect me to provide a clear example of him telling folks go harm congress members? We can all agree he didn't say any direct quotes like that. I did link to a full article that contained highlights for things that I'd consider euphemisms. Here are a few (not even all of them): - "... these people are not going to take it any longer, they’re not going to take it any longer." - "... to see our election victory stolen by bold and radical left Democrats. ... We will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved. ... We will not take it anymore, and that is what this is all about. .. We’re just not going to let that happen." - "We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. And we’re going to have to fight much harder." - "... Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness." - "Well, I would say yes, it does, because the Constitution says you have to protect our country, and you have to protect our Constitution, and you can’t vote on fraud, and fraud breaks up everything, doesn’t it? When you catch somebody in a fraud, you are allowed to go by very different rules." - "Looking out at all of the amazing patriots here today, I have never been more confident in our nation’s future." - "But I said something is wrong here, something is really wrong, can’t have happened, and we fight. We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore." The crowd was literally chanting "fight for Trump" during the speech before they went and...surprise... fought for Trump. Then after, he tweeted a video and some text: - "... Stay peaceful!" - "No violence!" - "We had an election that was stolen from us. ... We have to have peace. ... I know how you feel." - "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!" So yeah, he called for peace after rallying the crowd to fight for him. At the same time, he was saying that it was justified and that he feels the same way as the folks rioting.