O-Trap
Chief Shenanigans Officer
18,909
posts
Joined
Nov 2009
O-Trap
Chief Shenanigans Officer
Tue, Jul 23, 2019 9:59 AM
posted by Spock
Well he didnt use that term "countries" so you cant just imply that is what he meant
Let me repost the quote for you.
"So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world, now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run [...] Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done."
Yeah, he says 'countries'. He says it explicitly with regard to where these women "originally came from," even though three of them "came from" America every bit as much as he did. They have no more ties to nations and peoples in their heritage than he does to his. They're no more or less from anywhere else than he is.
Context matters. The entire statement shows him explicitly referencing countries and the comparison between governmental structures and policies.
Pretty weird thing to say about Brooklyn.
iclfan2
Reppin' the 330/216/843
9,465
posts
Joined
Nov 2009
iclfan2
Reppin' the 330/216/843
Tue, Jul 23, 2019 10:08 AM
posted by geeblock
Sure, just seems like he continually minimizes white nationalist groups as minimal and non existent or just a few crazy people. While exaggerating antifa as having tons of people. To my knowledge antifa hasn’t killed anyone but mass shootings by those with ties to white supremacy seem to be on the rise
There have been some white nationalist shootings, but they aren’t organized klan groups. The kid in Charleston didn’t go to some meetings and burn crosses like you imply. I’m not saying people aren’t racist, but there isn’t an organized group running around terrorizing people. And everyone condemns them when it happens. No one is supporting that stuff.
You can watch Antifa rallies online, they happen monthly in Portland and wherever else. I’m not exaggerating anything. It’s just accepted because the leftists don’t find a problem with their violence.
O-Trap
Chief Shenanigans Officer
18,909
posts
Joined
Nov 2009
O-Trap
Chief Shenanigans Officer
Tue, Jul 23, 2019 10:18 AM
posted by iclfan2
It’s just accepted because the leftists don’t find a problem with their violence.
I'm not sure this is why, particularly in the area.
My guess is, when it's your car or home or business getting damaged, you become an advocate of property rights (as opposed to collectivist rights) really quickly, if you weren't already. I just don't think they know what to do about it.
As for those of a liberal bent elsewhere, I think they agree with the overall mission, even if they disagree with the violent means, and I think that puts them in a weird spot, where they don't want to condemn the sought ends, but they do condemn the means.
Think about it like this: Suppose that several years ago, there was an organized group of people who would follow military funerals that the WBC was planning on protesting in order to give the WBC picketers an old-fashioned, behind-the-woodshed ass beating (while hiding their identities, as the WBC survived off lawsuits for years). The ends they seek ... to discourage the behavior of the WBC picketing while not allowing the WBC to sue them ... seems like the kind of thing you might applaud.
Now, obviously, their ends are violent, and you can't condone that. It's violence, plain and simple. Not self-defense. Not war, with its rules of engagement. It's assault.
How eagerly and quickly are you going to denounce their behavior?
O-Trap
Chief Shenanigans Officer
18,909
posts
Joined
Nov 2009
O-Trap
Chief Shenanigans Officer
Tue, Jul 23, 2019 10:50 AM
posted by gut
It's also a bit of a riff on the typical "if you don't like it, then leave" that people were saying during the Obama years, and more recently "promises" from various leftwingers after Trump got elected.
But, you know, Trump. Everything he says is twisted into being some sort of racist dog whistle. He lies all the time, right, except when he appears to be using racist coded language...then he's like, being totally honest and forthright.
Oh, I think his point was to drive the "if you don't like it, leave," but I think the "back where they came from" language alluded to how he sees them. I don't think it was the intended point to say that they're from somewhere else. I think it was closer to just a slip than anything.
As for when he'd be lying versus when he'd be telling the truth, you do have to take motive into account, so I can see believing him in certain scenarios, when it seems least like he's trying to depict himself as a good guy. Having said that, he's kind of a spaz monkey, so I'm not sure we really know his motives.
As for the idea of dog whistles, I'm getting tired of that concept altogether. I'm not saying that they don't exist, but if we're able to be rational (a tall order, I know), we can effectively draw the lines where they should be and avoid any fear of dog whistles anyway. Chris Pratt was fucking crucified for wearing that Gadsden flag shirt, and everyone was saying that it was because the Gadsden flag is a racist dog whistle. GTFO with that.
O-Trap
Chief Shenanigans Officer
18,909
posts
Joined
Nov 2009
O-Trap
Chief Shenanigans Officer
Tue, Jul 23, 2019 11:42 AM
posted by gut
I've always found it ironic that "dog whistle" usually involves someone who isn't supposed to be able to hear it, explaining what it means. It's mainly become a tool for media to drive their narrative when cherrypicking quotes out-of-context doesn't get the job done.
Other politicians choose their words very carefully to minimize their words being twisted. Trump doesn't care. I also don't think he's some evil genius who deliberately uses words that have special meaning only to the far right and far left.
The entire concept of calling out something as a dog whistle just seems intellectually lazy, to me. By its very definition, you're not supposed to be able to attribute the dog's actions to the whistle, because there's no sensory evidence to human beings. So, the parallel is that you have something that allegedly represents something else without any direct connection to it.
In other words, "We don't have any evidence to connect this thing to that ideology, but we think it's connected, so it is."
It's basically just a way to legitimize not needing proof of a connection between two things to call them connected.
O-Trap
Chief Shenanigans Officer
18,909
posts
Joined
Nov 2009
O-Trap
Chief Shenanigans Officer
Tue, Jul 23, 2019 11:44 AM
Fuck's sake, CC. I've posted the entire quote twice already.
For a third time ...
Tweeted by Trump:
"So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world, now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run [...] Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done."
Read that first sentence to yourself a couple times. Now a couple more.
Have you found it yet?
O-Trap
Chief Shenanigans Officer
18,909
posts
Joined
Nov 2009
O-Trap
Chief Shenanigans Officer
Tue, Jul 23, 2019 11:49 AM
posted by Spock
[...] implying that they go back to some country (which would be racist) [...]
Is that your final answer?
justincredible
Honorable Admin
37,969
posts
Joined
Nov 2009
justincredible
Honorable Admin
Tue, Jul 23, 2019 1:24 PM