You are in an awkward semantic position, John, asserting that something I did say means exactly the same as something I didn’t say, “justifiable” as compared to “understandable”. You sure as Hell wouldn’t let me get away with that!
But enough, we are dangerously close to posting a dictionary definition as an argument, a practice I loathe more than Coors.
Maybe Trump is right with his characterization of some. They’ve proven through actions such as waving foreign flags and physically attacking citizens who support a different political party that they are dangerous. That makes me fearful. Should I arm myself and attack them before another 10 million come?
See how this can escalate when apologists for political violence grow in number?
Actually, I misquoted myself. As I originally posted (emphasis added):
Still, what specifically is it that Trump has said that leads someone to think he has some responsibility to people reacting violently to it? And exact quotes, please.
Should have been clarified thusly (emphasis on part changed to reflect the original post):
*…knock yourself out. Nuance the shit out of us! Do whatever you have to do to convince us, with quotations, that the thuggery was, in some way, Trump’s responsibility. *
If you are uninterested in doing so, that’s fine. Bob can take up the challenge since his reaction was even stronger than yours.
I agree with you there. I am on the side that supports free speech and not assaulting third parties who support ideas I disagree with.
Then why would any of his opponents want to help his campaign by physically attacking his supporters? As someone who strongly opposes Trump, you should denounce violence against his supporters because it helps Trump (and because it’s wrong, too, if you like).
Then the Constitution ceases to exist, but the nation remains. A nation is not its constitution – France has had ten since 1789, and remained the same nation all through it.
(emphasis mine)
Well, shit, John, you’ve totally painted yourself into a corner with this. To bear no responsibility at all, he must be entirely innocent of provocation, yes? How is that even possible? Shirley that is not your position? He did nothing to denigrate and insult Hispanic Americans, we made it all up?
And when did you decide to bring “imminent” threat into this? Didn’t notice you using it before, but it was right there in the center of your argument? How’d I miss that?
Stating a political purpose is provocation for violence?
Do you think this is markedly different than saying that if a woman wears something skimpy, she had sexual assault coming to her? I’m struggling to see a difference.
Don’t get me wrong. There’s a difference between doing something ethical (wearing skimpy clothes) and doing something unethical (spouting racist bullshit). But then some of people who say women are to blame when they are raped would say the wearing of the skimpy outfit was itself wrong.
Do you find it supportable if someone says “The rapist is fully responsible, but you bear some responsibility for your actions”? I’ve never been okay with that line of reasoning, and I can’t find it in me to be okay with it here.
(Of course, plenty of people who are okay with it in the case of the rape victim suddenly find they just hate blaming the victim if the victim is Donald Trump.)
This is insanely irrational.
An insult creates responsibility for violence? Not in my book.
I don’t know. Maybe you forget that you explicitly asked me: “Are you suggesting that the response would have been the same, regardless of anything Trump might have said, or not said?” and that I was responding to that question. I mean, I quoted you and everything.
So I said “imminent”? Maybe, my memory isn’t what it used to be. Or maybe it is, but I don’t remember. Remind me.
He isn’t saying you said “imminent.” He’s giving that as an example that could change acceptable reaction to speech. If you a threatening imminent harm, that’s different than just being generally threatening to liberty, for example.
If you see how that applies, OK. I don’t. Trump could have made an effort to defuse the situation, he did not. Well, he did say how he loves Mexicans. I’m sure they were thrilled to hear it.
It applies because the conversation went like this (rough paraphrase)
E: Are you saying it would never be provocative enough?
JM: Well, if he said “I’m gonna shoot you right here!” Imminence would change things.
E: Wait, I didn’t say anything about imminence.
JM: I was replying to you!
E: But I didn’t say anything about imminence!
You asked if there could be times when he would be of a different opinion. He gave an example. That’s all that happened.
No. I said that. I thought you were asking me if I thought a person was ever responsible for violence in response to his speech. Did I misunderstand you? If not, then that was my answer to one instance when a violent reaction to speech was the responsibility of the speaker. I’m sure there are others, but that is one.
PS: Thank-you, jsgoddess. I thought I was being clear.
Its not simply that Hispanic Americans are angry at Trump, but that they are afraid of him, afraid of what he represents. Are they wrong to feel that way? Has Trump done or said anything to quell that fear and anger? And if that fear and anger has negative consequences, he bears no responsibility? Having stoked that fear and anger for political advantage, yet he is not, in any degree, responsible? Just an innocent lamb, frolicking and gamboling amongst the daffodils?
Yes. Willing to leave the whole “imminent” thingy there, if you are.
We are talking past each other.
Is anyone else confused about this? It’s so crystal clear to me that I can’t see what the problem is. If someone else can explain it, please do.
The concept of “fighting words” is not remotely limited to direct threats while reaching in to your coat pocket. Saying someone and/or their parents are rapists and drug dealers sound like fighting words to me.