You know, it would be fair to say he was being misleading if the full quote ended with “Psych!” As it is? How does adding back in what you did actually change the conversation one iota? I get that this is the dope, so it’s Pedantry Theatre for some, but goddamn, that was goofy.
I’ve never downplayed rape. You don’t understand what an analogy is.
Hate speech apologism? No. Free speech apologism. I don’t care what you say. And I’m not so emotionally insecure that I justify violence towards a speaker because of words. Even words I find offensive.
How does that feel? It feels good. I like knowing that my adoption of fundamental principles isn’t hypocritical.
And where have I justified criminal activity?
Edit…
Hmm. I thought this was directed to me. I missed CarnalK’s edit. But since JohnMace and I have been taking a similar point of view it could easily have been directed at me.
I’m pretty sure it doesn’t make John feel an uncontrollable urge to get smashy!
Right, I was just pointing out how “some, I assume, are good people” is a pretty lame get out of jail free card.
I meant words meant to bring on violence. And if violence does indeed occur, then you bear some measure of responsibility. It was, after all, what was intended. I have not said it justified in meeting words with violence.
The claim was: “Saying someone and/or their parents are rapists and drug dealers sound like fighting words to me.”
Leaving aside whether or not those are fighting words, there were no specific parents who were called rapist or drug dealers.
That’s true. It was true when he quoted it and it was true after you so pedantically “corrected” his quote by adding more. In other words, you did nothing to add to the discussion with your pedantry about the full quote but be irritating.
The only words that for me would garner some share of responsibility would be words that would sound like a real threat of imminent violence. Otherwise, no.
If some Hitler-ish person were saying “And now let’s round up the Jews!” and this person had the capability of making that happen, then maybe that would qualify as a real threat of imminent violence. I don’t think it would, but maybe.
It makes me feel that you’re wrong. For example, it’s not an apology for hate speech to say that the speaker doesn’t deserve to be assaulted.
No. His edited quote could reasonably be interpreted to mean that every last one of them is a rapist, which would validate his statement. Why do you think he edited it that way?
If Trump had said all immigrants who come to the country illegally fit into one of the negative categories, then the barest of arguments could be made to say that any child of one of those folks was the target of those comments. But since he added the statement at the end, then it’s no longer true that any child of one of those folks is the target of those comments. It does change the meaning.
Think of it this way - Trump could have said, “some are bad people, and some are good people. We need to keep out the bad people.” If you reduce this to “some are bad people” then it leaves the impression that the entire population being discussed is made up of bad people. The obvious response is, hey, I’m one of those people, and I’m not bad! If you have the latter portion, then you can respond by saying, yes, I acknowledged that there are good people too!
eta: Ninja’d
“Some are bad bad bad people. Let’s build a wall!”
“Some are bad bad bad people. I guess there are maybe some good people. Let’s build a wall!”
If you think the former makes you somewhat responsible for violence and the latter doesn’t, I have nothing I can really say to that. Remember, that is the context for this quote being offered in this thread, and the context for John Mace to “correct” the quote.
Not quite. Trump didn’t say “some are bad people”, he said “They are bad people”. If you edit the "some are good people " out, then the first version doesn’t really change, but the second version does.
I see what you’re saying I think. It’s not really germane to the idea of responsibility for violence - more of an accurate paraphrase I suppose.
Well I’m a utilitarian so I find it easy to assign partial responsibility. Partial responsibility is ubiquitous. But partial responsibility doesn’t justify violence. So I’d rather not spend the 10 minutes or so making this philosophical point. Oh hell: this is GD fodder and it could go on for pages.
Anyway, more anti-violence stuff, this time via Paul Krugman: [INDENT][INDENT]What is particularly disturbing is to see anti-Trump forces lashing out at Trump’s supporters, seemingly provoked simply by a difference in political position.
This cannot be. It’s self-defeating and narrows the space between the thing you despise and the thing you become. [/INDENT][/INDENT] Which puts the finger on the problem: “Narrowing the space between the thing you despise and the thing you become”. Later Krugman quotes MLK, who elaborates: [INDENT][INDENT]The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. [/INDENT][/INDENT]
Don’t take Trump’s bait.
The whole ‘responsibility’ debate is moot. Trump is accountable for it because he espoused doing exactly the same thing as the protesters have done at his rallies. He personally said he would like to punch someone in the mouth and that he would pay the legal bills of those who committed violence on people who protested him. That is beyond doubt; the quotes exist and I can cite them if necessary, though I would think that principals in this discussion already accept that. He was inciting his followers to violence, and there was a violent response on the opposing side.
The anti-Trump protesters are responsible for the actual events of violence against Trump supporters, and as such those individuals’ actions are to be deplored and prosecuted. But to claim that that violence exists in a vacuum and thus to pass over Trump’s own accountability is false. (You could also quite easily make the argument that Bernie is accountable for his laggardness in denouncing the protesters.)
He is. He should have stepped forward immediately and without hesitation. He was a better candidate when he didn’t have a chance, when the Presidential virus bit him, it was not an improvement.
To steer this back to the California primary:
The head count for the Hillary rally in Sacramento was 1100, compared to to over 11,000 for Bernie.
That one will earn you a warning, elucidator. Even sideways accusations of lying aren’t permitted.
School must be out.