4 ms·

>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

>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.
- rendall 2y ago
  > The left reads the earlier equivocations (in the quote, and the preceding events) and the talking point and discounts the condemnation as insincere. The left did not hear or read the condemnation at all, as we have established. Rather, they continue to be presented with curated sounds bites crafted to bolster a very particular narrative. It really will serve you to listen carefully to what your fellow Americans, including your President, are actually saying. You don't have to agree, but you will have a better idea of what's happening. It will not serve you to consume third-hand think-pieces discussing what they really meant by that "dogwhistle".
  - kristjansson 2y ago
    Refusing to hear the dogwhistles is much motivated listening as refusing to hear his condemnations of the far-right groups in that quote. Every listener has the privilege to infer the meaning and mind of their interlocutor given his utterances, and every speaker bears the responsibility of crafting their utterances to make their intended meaning understood by as clearly as possible by their audience. Yes, some listeners might interrogate an utterance in vain, looking for hidden meanings that just aren't there. But accepting the facile meaning of an utterance with total credulity is equally a losing strategy.
so_delphi 2y ago
Didn't he invite a literal neo-nazi in his house? https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-blast-trump-dinner-holocaust-denier-nick-fuentes-appalled https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-blast-trump-din... What are we talking about here? https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-says-immigrants-are-poisoning-blood-country-biden-campaign-liken-rcna130141 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-says-im... Trump is a fascist at his core, a textbook one.
- rendall 2y ago
  Perhaps, but in my opinion this incident does not demonstrate it. His explanation is plausible. > "So I help a seriously troubled man, who just happens to be black, Ye (Kanye West), who has been decimated in his business and virtually everything else, and who has always been good to me, by allowing his request for a meeting at Mar-a-Lago, alone, so that I can give him very much needed ‘advice’," Trump wrote in a message posted Saturday to his Truth Social account. "He shows up with 3 people, two of which I didn’t know, the other a political person who I haven’t seen in years. I told him don’t run for office, a total waste of time, can’t win. Fake News went CRAZY!" His explanation is not printed at the beginning. It is printed near the end, only after quoting 10 people who disapproved of the meeting, plus an extensive catalogue of Ye's and Fuente's moral failings. The article relies on emotionalism to craft a specific view. They even capitalize CRAZY, which makes the explanation sound less plausible. Trump may indeed be a "textbook fascist" whatever that means, but this article does not grant its audience the intelligence to work that out for themselves. Rather, to accept the article without skepticism requires one to believe that Trump is a white supremacist anti-Semite. That will be much easier to do if one has been primed by similar low-quality articles to believe it. Ye has been a friend to Trump and is clearly disturbed. He brought people along with whom Trump was not familiar, yet the article makes it sound as if he deliberately invited them to attend some kind of sinister summit. The idea that a Latino and Black man would be welcome in white supremacist circles is absurd. Trump has been the most pro-Israel President in history, and has a Jewish son-in-law - one of his closest advisors - and grandchildren. He is not an anti-Semite, so the article's attempt to tar him with that brush is silly. Just walk through each article about Trump with the skeptical view that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you will see that most such articles - even from formerly well-respected journals like NYT and WaPo - rely on emotionalism to convey an impression about Trump. The only evidence that Trump is a dangerous fascist is of similar low quality. Like the evidence for alien visitation: lots of evidence, but all of it very low-quality rumors, innuendo and wishful thinking. The question of whether Trump is a good President is a separate matter. He may be petty, vindictive, selfish. On the other hand, he invited a friend for counseling at great political risk to himself. He's also the only President in my lifetime who did not start a new war. So, a mixed bag, like all the others. The extreme hysteria around Trump actually prevents people like me from evaluating Trump on his actual merits. Every article only highlights the negative of anything Trump does, which is as unhelpful as highlighting only the positive. But no, I don't think Trump is a fascist, textbook or otherwise. I think the unhinged reactions to Trump are far more dangerous to our country, to be honest. We allowed the FBI to suppress a news story last election that would have been bad for Biden. That's terrifying.

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.

rendall 2y ago
> The left reads the earlier equivocations (in the quote, and the preceding events) and the talking point and discounts the condemnation as insincere. The left did not hear or read the condemnation at all, as we have established. Rather, they continue to be presented with curated sounds bites crafted to bolster a very particular narrative. It really will serve you to listen carefully to what your fellow Americans, including your President, are actually saying. You don't have to agree, but you will have a better idea of what's happening. It will not serve you to consume third-hand think-pieces discussing what they really meant by that "dogwhistle".
- kristjansson 2y ago
  Refusing to hear the dogwhistles is much motivated listening as refusing to hear his condemnations of the far-right groups in that quote. Every listener has the privilege to infer the meaning and mind of their interlocutor given his utterances, and every speaker bears the responsibility of crafting their utterances to make their intended meaning understood by as clearly as possible by their audience. Yes, some listeners might interrogate an utterance in vain, looking for hidden meanings that just aren't there. But accepting the facile meaning of an utterance with total credulity is equally a losing strategy.

so_delphi 2y ago

Didn't he invite a literal neo-nazi in his house? https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-blast-trump-dinner-holocaust-denier-nick-fuentes-appalled https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-blast-trump-din... What are we talking about here? https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-says-immigrants-are-poisoning-blood-country-biden-campaign-liken-rcna130141 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-says-im... Trump is a fascist at his core, a textbook one.

rendall 2y ago
Perhaps, but in my opinion this incident does not demonstrate it. His explanation is plausible. > "So I help a seriously troubled man, who just happens to be black, Ye (Kanye West), who has been decimated in his business and virtually everything else, and who has always been good to me, by allowing his request for a meeting at Mar-a-Lago, alone, so that I can give him very much needed ‘advice’," Trump wrote in a message posted Saturday to his Truth Social account. "He shows up with 3 people, two of which I didn’t know, the other a political person who I haven’t seen in years. I told him don’t run for office, a total waste of time, can’t win. Fake News went CRAZY!" His explanation is not printed at the beginning. It is printed near the end, only after quoting 10 people who disapproved of the meeting, plus an extensive catalogue of Ye's and Fuente's moral failings. The article relies on emotionalism to craft a specific view. They even capitalize CRAZY, which makes the explanation sound less plausible. Trump may indeed be a "textbook fascist" whatever that means, but this article does not grant its audience the intelligence to work that out for themselves. Rather, to accept the article without skepticism requires one to believe that Trump is a white supremacist anti-Semite. That will be much easier to do if one has been primed by similar low-quality articles to believe it. Ye has been a friend to Trump and is clearly disturbed. He brought people along with whom Trump was not familiar, yet the article makes it sound as if he deliberately invited them to attend some kind of sinister summit. The idea that a Latino and Black man would be welcome in white supremacist circles is absurd. Trump has been the most pro-Israel President in history, and has a Jewish son-in-law - one of his closest advisors - and grandchildren. He is not an anti-Semite, so the article's attempt to tar him with that brush is silly. Just walk through each article about Trump with the skeptical view that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you will see that most such articles - even from formerly well-respected journals like NYT and WaPo - rely on emotionalism to convey an impression about Trump. The only evidence that Trump is a dangerous fascist is of similar low quality. Like the evidence for alien visitation: lots of evidence, but all of it very low-quality rumors, innuendo and wishful thinking. The question of whether Trump is a good President is a separate matter. He may be petty, vindictive, selfish. On the other hand, he invited a friend for counseling at great political risk to himself. He's also the only President in my lifetime who did not start a new war. So, a mixed bag, like all the others. The extreme hysteria around Trump actually prevents people like me from evaluating Trump on his actual merits. Every article only highlights the negative of anything Trump does, which is as unhelpful as highlighting only the positive. But no, I don't think Trump is a fascist, textbook or otherwise. I think the unhinged reactions to Trump are far more dangerous to our country, to be honest. We allowed the FBI to suppress a news story last election that would have been bad for Biden. That's terrifying.