I don’t get that. I mean, I can see how it can be interpreted that way, but I don’t see that as the same as she meant it that way.
If you look for insult, you will manage to find it in the most respectful of comments.
She was not making the most respectful of comments, she was in fact being critical. She was criticizing policies. And when there is criticism, it is even easier to root around and find something that “implies” insult.
If she had said, “'I disagree with Obama’s policy on drone strikes, and believe we should examine and highlight the problems with that policy to avoid making the same mistake in the future.” then people would be all over her for “implying” that Obama couldn’t get anything right and did everything wrong.
If you see something, and think that it “implies” something, then it is always a good idea to step back, and try to tell if they actually meant it that way. If them meaning it that way means that they are underhanded and nasty, then maybe take a moment to determine whether or not they actually are, or if it only your interpretation of the implication that you think that their comments could have, or whether they are actually coming from a place of hatred and vileness.
So many people are blaming all the country’s ills on the man who currently resides in the white house. Now, to be fair, he is creating some new ills of his own, but he is not responsible for quite a bit of the mess that we have gotten ourselves into.
I don’t really agree with her on quite a bit, actually, but it does bother me that she is treated with such contempt and such little latitude. She’s a normal person who suddenly got thrown into the spotlight. Now, it was her decision, and she knows that, but it still takes some getting used to that every single word that you utter will be analyzed and cast in the worst possible light.
To interpret her words about Obama in such an anodyne way is to totally ignore the cultural context she comes from. Not her religious faith or her immigrant background—not at all. It’s the far left, Glenn Greenwald/Democracy Now/truthout cesspool where characterizing Obama as just a smooth talking empty suit whose soothing, hip exterior provides cover for a fascist, imperialist military-industrial complex is the air they breathe. So much so that I think it comes out without conscious recognition of what a scathing condemnation it really is.
So, your implications on where she is coming from informs your implications on what she means, and your implications on where she is coming from is informed by your implications on what other people mean.
Maybe it is perceived as “scathing condemnation” more than it really is because of your perceptions on where you think taht she is coming from.
Can you actually quote her saying “Obama as just a smooth talking empty suit whose soothing, hip exterior provides cover for a fascist, imperialist military-industrial complex”? If not, then why would you attribute such a stance to her?
You have now said that she comes from a cesspool. How charitably should we take that comment?
Obviously I disagree with you, iiandyiiii. You seem to offer special pleading on behalf of Omar that doesn’t stand up, logically:
Of course saying someone “isn’t entirely perfect” is a personal attack, rather than an attack on policies.
This type of claim (my emphasis) has been made in this thread before, and the maker was challenged to back it up with actual evidence.
Again: please provide evidence for your claim. Name the Democrats, please, and what they said that’s equivalent in meaning to “it’s unacceptable to question anything about the US-Israeli relationship and Israeli policies.”
I’m not seeing how anyone would get “couldn’t get anything right” or “did everything wrong” from your example.
But of course the larger question is how we derive meaning from what people say. Part of Trump’s success has come from the fact that he doesn’t say things outright—he implies them. For example:
There’s “plausible deniability” in saying things without saying them directly. Trump’s habit of speaking indirectly—requiring his listeners to infer what he’s implying—was recently remarked on by his longtime associate Michael Cohen:
Another way of looking at this:
Again, Omar, whether by instinct or by design, appears to have adopted Trump’s indirect style—requiring her listeners to infer what she’s implying. She chooses not to state her views outright, but instead to insinuate. The benefit, as with Trump, is that defenders will rush in to “explain” or “translate” what she’s said. She can throw bombs with impunity.
Well, the freshman class in this new Congress is, what, ninety-nine strong? And among them, about a quarter are people of color, I believe. And Omar not the only Muslim.
Are all these people receiving equal amounts of negative attention? If not, could their own conduct have something to do with the amount of attention they are, or are not receiving? Or is bias and bigotry the only explanation for why some are being discussed by Democrats? If anti-Muslim hatred is the only reason Democrats are discussing Omar, then shouldn’t we expect to see a lot of vitriol from Democrats about Andre Carson (D-Indiana)?
If we’re not seeing that, could it be that discussion of Omar has something to do with Omar’s own conduct?
Of course your claim was that “some” Democrats have said “it’s unacceptable to question anything about the US-Israeli relationship.” Do you want to revise your claim to
“One Democrat has said it’s unacceptable to question anything about the US-Israeli relationship”—?
That’s the Democrat I was thinking about, and I used “some” in the colloquial way that doesn’t necessarily specify a number other than > 0 and < all, since I wasn’t sure how many others agreed (though I do personally know many non-Congress Democrats who feel the same way). But because this is so incredibly unimportant to my main point, I’ll happily concede this to you – you are the victor, sir, and I congratulate you on this for a well-nitpicked victory!
Argumentation tactics are interesting. Claiming “some” obviously carries more weight than claiming “one guy from San Diego.” Not that there’s anything wrong with San Diego.
But when making a point, it’s always good to have evidence available to back up that point.
Well, it was a bunch of Democrats I’ve spoken to personally, plus at least one Democratic US Congressperson. But please, by all means, revel in your victory, as I will grovel to your rhetorical superiority. Kudos!
…You know, it’s entirely possible that Omar will quit with the insults and become the new Lion of the House (if the Senate gets a Lion, why shouldn’t the House?) I will cheer if she does so.
Interesting cite-free opinions you offer on a criticism about how “evidence is not required” on this board and it’s “opinions all the way down”. Fascinating!
Then you failed to make yourself understood. You made a claim as to where she was coming from. I questioned you on that claim.
If you didn’t mean to make that claim, then please clarify what you are talking about.
Motivated reasoning. If someone wants to take exception to what someone has said, then they will find something offensive to take exception to.
And then there is what Trump says directly, as well as his actions, to also inform what he implies. It actually requires quite a bit of interpretation of Trump’s messaging to find a way that it is not offensive.
I think if anything, Trump has primed people to look for “the deeper meaning” in the words of others, even if they have none.
It is not defenders “explaining” or “translating”, I don’t really have a great defense for her. I don’t know her, she’s not my rep, and most of the policies that I have seen her advocate for I do not think are practical as written, but I see the criticisms of her, and I find them to be quite the stretch. I do not stick up for her because I agree with her, I stick up for her because I see someone being, IMHO, unfairly attacked. And attacked in a way that mostly leads to internecine warfare within the party, to the benefit of only the republican party. There is no explanation or translation needed, I have only looked at the actual things that she has said, asked where she has said the things she is accused of saying, and finding the examples to be lacking.
Now, her attackers are certainly “explaining” and “translating”. I have seen many “paraphrases” of her words that do not contain anything that she has actually said. I have seen uncharitable interpretations of what I consider to be common innocuous phrases. I have seen charges leveled at her for her criticisms of a group that had anyone else criticized any other group in the same way, no one would have blinked.
[/quote]
Well, the freshman class in this new Congress is, what, ninety-nine strong? And among them, about a quarter are people of color, I believe. And Omar not the only Muslim.
[/quote]
Yeah, all one other Muslim woman.
You are right. Have they said anything at all that is in any way critical of the country or its direction?
Is it just that they know that they need to stay quiet, to not draw any attention to themselves, for fear receiving the same treatment as their colleague?
Looking into Carson’s twitter feed, I see that he recently posted:
One of the first replies:
Rashida Tlaib had this to say:
To which one of the first replies is:
Yeah, she criticizes the govt and its actions, which makes it easier for the trolls to “translate” or “explain” to you why what she said should offend you.
She’s just the current lightning rod. Once she is cowed into silence, then the trolls will find some implication in another minority that they don’t like, and take offense to what is “implied”.
I’ll agree that she should be more careful with her messaging. She has said some things that were tone deaf as to the implications that could be assumed to her words, making her an easy target. But, the only way for her to stop receiving any of this criticism of her character is to no longer criticize the US govt or its actions.
Actually, it’s “shut up and disappear completely”. Anything less won’t get these trolls to shut up, and even then they’ll just move on to the next target.
The sheer amount if bad-faith bullshit flung at Omar would be stunning if I hadn’t been following politics during the Obama years. What is stunning is how much of it is coming from within the democratic party. It’s kind of insane, really, when you look at party discipline - Republicans can stop anyone in their party from breaking rank on account of people like Steve King or Donald Trump; the freshman congresswoman has a few pointed comments on zionist lobbying groups or the ways Obama was less than perfect, and immediately the dems get their knives out. It’s kind of incredible, honestly. I really can’t wrap my head around it.
I mean, it could just be racism and islamophobia. That explanation makes a fair bit of sense.
It’s true. The GOP side can tolerate all kinds of hate speech and sexual predation. The Dem side does not. What up with that?
There are trolls no question. And it is wrong to dismiss all criticism and requests for less insulting and insensitive wording as trolling or as wanting her to disappear or as attempts to censor all discussion of subjects of disagreement.
Trolls and hate on the GOP side does not excuse anything and does not constitute any argument against criticism from those who want to be on your team.
