4 ms·

From its fake news to apologist in a few comments. If you apologized for being wrong instead of defending a buffoon.

by Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago

bryanrasmussen 4y ago
am I the 'you' in your comment?
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
  The last part is obviously nonsensical, sorry about that, I can’t edit it now. My point stands that the goalposts were moved in a doubling down on trump. His personality cult is impressive.
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    I'm not sure what your point is actually? Are you reading my comment as being somehow pro-Trump? If so and you do not have some disability that makes picking up on sarcasm or humor difficult then please read again as I suppose you may be distracted or going through some problem. If you do have a disability that makes picking up on sarcasm etc. difficult then no, it was insulting to Trump because it goes back to the common observation that Trump is intellectually deficient, thus if someone is defending Trump they are now left with two problems, I have apparently sided with them and said well of course Trump is stupid so he won't be able to understand that he is mocking a disabled person. This would be problematic for a defender of Trump because if they admit he is stupid this puts their hero in a bad light, but if they argue he is not too stupid to realize the person they are mocking is disabled then we are back to he knowingly mocked a disabled person. By pretending to excuse Trump by reason of stupidity I establish the rhetorical point that the mannerisms that were being mocked are commonly understood as being evidences of disability. This rhetorical point once established makes it difficult to argue that he didn't know, they need now to argue: 1. that the mannerisms are not commonly understood as being disabled. 2. that he did not know the person was disabled and 3. because of 1 his not knowing is not evidence of stupidity. all that would be tall order, and thus someone who was in the bag for Trump would probably prefer not to do any of them.

From its fake news to apologist in a few comments. If you apologized for being wrong instead of defending a buffoon.

bryanrasmussen 4y ago

am I the 'you' in your comment?

Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
The last part is obviously nonsensical, sorry about that, I can’t edit it now. My point stands that the goalposts were moved in a doubling down on trump. His personality cult is impressive.
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  I'm not sure what your point is actually? Are you reading my comment as being somehow pro-Trump? If so and you do not have some disability that makes picking up on sarcasm or humor difficult then please read again as I suppose you may be distracted or going through some problem. If you do have a disability that makes picking up on sarcasm etc. difficult then no, it was insulting to Trump because it goes back to the common observation that Trump is intellectually deficient, thus if someone is defending Trump they are now left with two problems, I have apparently sided with them and said well of course Trump is stupid so he won't be able to understand that he is mocking a disabled person. This would be problematic for a defender of Trump because if they admit he is stupid this puts their hero in a bad light, but if they argue he is not too stupid to realize the person they are mocking is disabled then we are back to he knowingly mocked a disabled person. By pretending to excuse Trump by reason of stupidity I establish the rhetorical point that the mannerisms that were being mocked are commonly understood as being evidences of disability. This rhetorical point once established makes it difficult to argue that he didn't know, they need now to argue: 1. that the mannerisms are not commonly understood as being disabled. 2. that he did not know the person was disabled and 3. because of 1 his not knowing is not evidence of stupidity. all that would be tall order, and thus someone who was in the bag for Trump would probably prefer not to do any of them.