5 ms·

As someone who has listened to both (or many, since there are not just two) sides, I can say for certain there is a severe disconnect between what Team Red says

As someone who has listened to both (or many, since there are not just two) sides, I can say for certain there is a severe disconnect between what Team Red says and what Team Blue writes about what Team Red says. If you are really interested in what Team Red says, do not listen to Team Blue at all about it. Not CNN, not Harris, not Blue politicians, not Blue journalists. > If your own political conviction influence your works as a professor, then you're perhaps not that great a professor Indeed. This is a major ongoing crisis in academe. And journalism. As a self check, if you think that Trump's "very fine people on both sides" remark referred to white supremacists as "very fine people", then you need to upgrade your sources. Find the extended original video. It is hard to do! If you give up, let me know and I will send you a link. The search is instructive, however.

calf 2y ago
Do you hold this standard for Team Red? Do you tell them to use their listening skills too?
- rendall 2y ago
  I did not say "use listening skills". If you go back and read carefully, I suggested going directly to the source because we live in an age of unprecedented direct access, and it is no longer necessary to have same-side "explainers" about what the other side thinks and says. To hear what Team Blue thinks, I'd recommend Team Red simply read the New York Times, the Washington Post, the New Yorker, Time Magazine, et. al. Or watch CNN, MSNBC, BBC America, network news... Even Wikipedia.
  - kristjansson 2y ago
    You write a lot about the importance of primary sources. I agree with you w.r.t. their importance. I just disagree with that a primary source is automatically the best conveyor of its own message. The primary source has to be read with every bit of the skepticism and critical analysis you apply to secondary sources, if not more.
    - rendall 2y ago
      I would agree with you if we were discussing some academic topic. The topic under discussion is why would anyone vote for Donald Trump? A Berkley sociologist writing about how Trump voters are resentful because minorities jumped the line is about as tendentious and echo-chamber-y as one can get. It's almost begging the response "wait your turn, you hicks!" My reading directly from the voters is that they feel Democrats are out of touch, pandering only to a very limited set of elites with very specific, weird values who are dangerously authoritarian, dogmatic and powerful. They feel that Democrats have contempt for the poor, working and middle classes, but mask this contempt by dismissing any policy debate or disagreement as racist or transphobic. They feel that Democratic partisans have a firm grip on mainstream media, academic institutions, and much of government, and a demonstrated willingness to promote lies through those institutions, so Team Red views any pronouncements from those sources as deeply untrustworthy when not outright false. They see the rioting as madness, and believe that continuing down the path set by Democrats as bringing more of the same. Whenever they try to have Team Blue effectively address these concerns, their feedback is only "Wow! Racist much? Take your Russian asset ass out of here, dinosaur. Adults are talking." That's not really much of an exaggeration, by the way. Trump, again, according to them, is an underdog in that fight, but will at least try to restore order. That's my take on what they're collectively saying and why Trump won. Yours might be different. Like I said, go to the sources. But, when I compare the way Team Red and Team Blue we're talking about issues, it did not surprise me that Team Red won this round. Team Blue needs to become less hysterical and bullying to win next round. My personal hope is that Team Blue will listen, reflect and reform, but I've been hoping for that for several cycles now. They'll probably just wait until Team Red overreaches, as each side always does.
      - skissane 2y ago
        > A Berkley sociologist writing about how Trump voters are resentful because minorities jumped the line It is also a theory which (very wrongly) presumes that no member of minority groups voted for Trump. Consider Starr County, Texas – at 97% Hispanic/Latino, it is the most Hispanic county in the 50 states. In 2016, Clinton won it 79.1% to Trump's 19%; in 2020, Clinton won it 52.1% to Trump's 47.1%; in 2024, Trump won 57.7%, ending a 132 year streak of Democrats winning it in Presidential elections. https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2024/11/06/starr-county-flips-red-for-the-first-time-in-over-100-years/ https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2024/11/06/starr-county-flip...
kristjansson 2y ago
A careful, generous reading 'fine people' thing shows that he probably didn't _mean_ to include supremacists in the praise. But those groups heard as compliment and endorsement, and thanked him for it. One has to think that this palimpsest property of his speech, be it intentional or accidental, is key to his appeal. Every listener to parse the message they want to hear out of his language.
- rendall 2y ago
  >A careful, generous reading 'fine people' thing shows that he probably didn't _mean_ to include supremacists in the praise. Not all. No need to be careful or generous. A very straightforward, plain reading of his statement makes it clear he explicitly excluded the neo-Nazis and white supremacists, because he explicitly did so in the same speech, practically in the same breath: "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally." He said it that clearly, but you cannot find a clip which includes that quote from NYT nor WP nor CNN nor from any outlet to whom Team Blue is likely to listen. ... which illustrates my main point. A helpful answer to the question of why anyone would vote for Trump will simply not be found in Blue sources. Blue sources will only impart a conceptual model of Trump's victory that is frightening and the opposite of helpful. > One has to think that this palimpsest property of his speech... Support Trump or not, most of the controversies regarding his speech are similar deliberate misreading of his intent by people we had hitherto entrusted with the curation of facts to be used in our national dialogue.
  - kristjansson 2y ago
    And in the breath before the condemnation, he equates Lee and Washington/Jefferson as slaveholders, which aligns entirely with the groups he condemns in the next breath. This is what I mean by palimpsest. You read the condemnation and hear just that. The condemned group hears their talking point and the earlier equivocation and celebrates him as an ally, condemnation be damned. The left reads the earlier equivocations (in the quote, and the preceding events) and the talking point and discounts the condemnation as insincere. You can argue that your understanding of his utterance is his true meaning, but other groups can hear, and plausibly defend, the message they want to hear too.

calf 2y ago

Do you hold this standard for Team Red? Do you tell them to use their listening skills too?

rendall 2y ago
I did not say "use listening skills". If you go back and read carefully, I suggested going directly to the source because we live in an age of unprecedented direct access, and it is no longer necessary to have same-side "explainers" about what the other side thinks and says. To hear what Team Blue thinks, I'd recommend Team Red simply read the New York Times, the Washington Post, the New Yorker, Time Magazine, et. al. Or watch CNN, MSNBC, BBC America, network news... Even Wikipedia.
- kristjansson 2y ago
  You write a lot about the importance of primary sources. I agree with you w.r.t. their importance. I just disagree with that a primary source is automatically the best conveyor of its own message. The primary source has to be read with every bit of the skepticism and critical analysis you apply to secondary sources, if not more.
  - rendall 2y ago
    I would agree with you if we were discussing some academic topic. The topic under discussion is why would anyone vote for Donald Trump? A Berkley sociologist writing about how Trump voters are resentful because minorities jumped the line is about as tendentious and echo-chamber-y as one can get. It's almost begging the response "wait your turn, you hicks!" My reading directly from the voters is that they feel Democrats are out of touch, pandering only to a very limited set of elites with very specific, weird values who are dangerously authoritarian, dogmatic and powerful. They feel that Democrats have contempt for the poor, working and middle classes, but mask this contempt by dismissing any policy debate or disagreement as racist or transphobic. They feel that Democratic partisans have a firm grip on mainstream media, academic institutions, and much of government, and a demonstrated willingness to promote lies through those institutions, so Team Red views any pronouncements from those sources as deeply untrustworthy when not outright false. They see the rioting as madness, and believe that continuing down the path set by Democrats as bringing more of the same. Whenever they try to have Team Blue effectively address these concerns, their feedback is only "Wow! Racist much? Take your Russian asset ass out of here, dinosaur. Adults are talking." That's not really much of an exaggeration, by the way. Trump, again, according to them, is an underdog in that fight, but will at least try to restore order. That's my take on what they're collectively saying and why Trump won. Yours might be different. Like I said, go to the sources. But, when I compare the way Team Red and Team Blue we're talking about issues, it did not surprise me that Team Red won this round. Team Blue needs to become less hysterical and bullying to win next round. My personal hope is that Team Blue will listen, reflect and reform, but I've been hoping for that for several cycles now. They'll probably just wait until Team Red overreaches, as each side always does.
    - skissane 2y ago
      > A Berkley sociologist writing about how Trump voters are resentful because minorities jumped the line It is also a theory which (very wrongly) presumes that no member of minority groups voted for Trump. Consider Starr County, Texas – at 97% Hispanic/Latino, it is the most Hispanic county in the 50 states. In 2016, Clinton won it 79.1% to Trump's 19%; in 2020, Clinton won it 52.1% to Trump's 47.1%; in 2024, Trump won 57.7%, ending a 132 year streak of Democrats winning it in Presidential elections. https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2024/11/06/starr-county-flips-red-for-the-first-time-in-over-100-years/ https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2024/11/06/starr-county-flip...

kristjansson 2y ago

A careful, generous reading 'fine people' thing shows that he probably didn't _mean_ to include supremacists in the praise. But those groups heard as compliment and endorsement, and thanked him for it. One has to think that this palimpsest property of his speech, be it intentional or accidental, is key to his appeal. Every listener to parse the message they want to hear out of his language.

rendall 2y ago
>A careful, generous reading 'fine people' thing shows that he probably didn't _mean_ to include supremacists in the praise. Not all. No need to be careful or generous. A very straightforward, plain reading of his statement makes it clear he explicitly excluded the neo-Nazis and white supremacists, because he explicitly did so in the same speech, practically in the same breath: "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally." He said it that clearly, but you cannot find a clip which includes that quote from NYT nor WP nor CNN nor from any outlet to whom Team Blue is likely to listen. ... which illustrates my main point. A helpful answer to the question of why anyone would vote for Trump will simply not be found in Blue sources. Blue sources will only impart a conceptual model of Trump's victory that is frightening and the opposite of helpful. > One has to think that this palimpsest property of his speech... Support Trump or not, most of the controversies regarding his speech are similar deliberate misreading of his intent by people we had hitherto entrusted with the curation of facts to be used in our national dialogue.
- kristjansson 2y ago
  And in the breath before the condemnation, he equates Lee and Washington/Jefferson as slaveholders, which aligns entirely with the groups he condemns in the next breath. This is what I mean by palimpsest. You read the condemnation and hear just that. The condemned group hears their talking point and the earlier equivocation and celebrates him as an ally, condemnation be damned. The left reads the earlier equivocations (in the quote, and the preceding events) and the talking point and discounts the condemnation as insincere. You can argue that your understanding of his utterance is his true meaning, but other groups can hear, and plausibly defend, the message they want to hear too.