Trump Steps in it Again

[Borachio]

It's easier to not engage with openly hostile mockers who are borderline bigots versus conservatives and the old. What is truly bizarre is that I am unabashedly supportive of young people, immigrants, and genuine refugees.

So am I, Mr Critzer. So am I.

And nobody here is an openly hostile mocker, imo.

Mocker, maybe. Hostile, no.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So am I, Mr Critzer. So am I.

And nobody here is an openly hostile mocker, imo.

Mocker, maybe. Hostile, no.

Probably not there. Perhaps here on this side of the pond hostility is more common though.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

I would say accusing an anonymous person of dementia and Tourette's is very hostile and not tolerated many places either now or when the Internet was nearly unknown other than academia and government workers.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

He's referring to me there @Borachio ...I asked if there was some sort of "typing version" of Tourette's that could account for the somewhat random and disconnected nature of his posts. I didn't want to mistakenly think badly of someone if there was some condition that could explain the situation. He never answered though, and I didn't bother reading up on possible "typing Tourette's" diagnoses. Now that I am reminded it does seem an interesting topic though.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

So today, the new normal is accusing others of medical conditions when you can't debate them. It is a classic appeal to ridicule. Which is why some accuse President Trump of dementia...including a handful of medical professionals violating their ethical standards, and low brow heckling journalists who have no professional certification.

In the ancient days, people of color were considered not intelligent enough to debate. They pulled that nonsense with women as well.

If that tactic fails,you are considered "uppity".

And finally, when all else fails, you are labeled a "gadfly".

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So today, the new normal is accusing others of medical conditions when you can't debate them. It is a classic appeal to ridicule. Which is why some accuse President Trump of dementia...including a handful of medical professionals violating their ethical standards, and low brow heckling journalists who have no professional certification.

Actually, if there was an "accusation" at all it was that your posts in the topic at the time were totally disjointed, relating neither to the conversation at hand nor even to each other. They were just a series of non sequiturs and mostly appearing to be insults. I asked about a possible medical condition because it seemed a reasonable explanation, while the more commonly assumed (and generally viewed as 'worse') explanation could not be asked about openly and I didn't want to make that assumption without at least exploring options. It is unfortunate that you took such offense.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It is a fact that 90% of the media reports are negative regarding President Trump and no longer is balanced journalism.

Wait what. Even if this were true (and LOL Fox is still the largest cable news network), what's the problem?

Should the media have covered the good things Pol Pot did to be 'fair and balanced'?

 

[Berzerker]

Sen Cory Booker is upset, he said millions of Americans are in pain because Trump called Haiti a s-hole. I'd think they're happy to be out of that s-hole and dont wanna go back, thats why they're in pain. Same with Central Americans... Course we've been screwing with these countries for so long I think its poetic justice they're here seeking sanctuary.

Seriously,

Please read the wikipedia entry on the Haitian revolution then report your thoughts. I genuinely think your opinion would change. You have no idea how brutal France was and the chaos they triggered.

Then again I half expect you to come back, 'but look what the Haitians did to the white women on the island'.

The treatment of white women is more responsible for Haiti's current state of affairs than the Duvalier family?

The problem isn't so much that he called the countries s-holes in a public manner.

He didn't do it in a public manner, Sen Durbin made the comment public. Seems he was more interested in scoring political points than all the negative consequences from going public. Can you imagine a US senator telling the world how LBJ really felt about South Vietnam? Hmm...another French colony?

However, it is racist to say that we shouldn't allow people from these countries in solely on account of them coming from those countries. It's essentially saying that the people from Africa and Haiti are lesser people solely because of where they come from. When you follow that up and say we should be looking to admit people like come from Norway instead, then the implication is crystal clear - even though if you're Norwegian, the U.S. and especially the parts of it wearing MAGA hats looks like quite a s-hole in its own right.

So its racist for Norway to reject American immigrants because the USA is a s-hole? Trump's argument is for reducing immigration based on humanitarian aid in favor of other forms of merit. To him Norway vs Haiti apparently exemplifies that argument...

All this time wasted trying to explain how Donald Trump isn't racist is absurd. He's not hiding it, nor is he trying to hide it. The only reason he even bothers denying it is that it gives his racist followers cover. "Well Trump believes and says the things I believe and say, and he says he's not racist so there's nothing wrong with it!"

I'm explaining why calling Haiti a s-hole isn't racist, I'd expect even Haitians who left to offer that rationale.

I'd rather live next to an educated black man from Africa then a WHITE uneducated redneck from Alabama.

Hmm, I guess I could take color completely out of that without changing my attitude about the rest of it.

I'd take education out of it too leaving the Alabama 'redneck' as the relevant factor.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

Nice. So...you think President Trump is somehow equivalent to Pol Pot?

I can't wait to hear that assertion be logically explained. Shall I prepare popcorn?

Something tells me that you are a bit disconnected from actual history and in making a balanced assessment. I know, maybe you should consider becoming an American journalist-entertainer?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Nice. So...you think President Trump is somehow equivalent to Pol Pot?

Sure. Political leader of a country who received (receives) 90% bad press (allegedly). For purposes of the discussion at hand the similarity is obvious.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

You see how bad polemics are? They are not intellectually defensible. If I ever said Trump is like Pol Pot in any humanities courses while in a university setting, I probably would expect to fail the course.

In no way are they alike. So the post makes no sense. It is just another Godwinesque antic to entertain, I guess?

But go for it. Explain this assertion in detail. But you can't.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You see how bad polemics are? They are not intellectually defensible. If I ever said Trump is like Pol Pot in any humanities courses while in a university setting, I probably would expect to fail the course.

In no way are they alike. So the post makes no sense. It is just another Godwinesque antic to entertain, I guess?

But go for it. Explain this assertion in detail. But you can't.

I already did. In the course of that I cited one way that they are definitely alike. That one way, since the discussion somehow got off into "Trump gets 90% bad press" territory (who brought that up in the firs...oh, yeah, YOU did) makes Pol Pot a perfectly valid point of comparison.

To explain in more detail, the comparison was made to illustrate that if Trump actually gets "90% bad press," which I believe was your assertion then a likely possible explanation is that he has actually done 90% bad things...an assertion I personally find reasonable, if lacking the actual mathematical precision that it implies. Pol Pot was introduced as a supporting example of someone who got mostly bad press who I think most people would agree did in fact do mostly bad things. There was no implication, outside of your knee jerk defensiveness, that the specific bad things were the same, or even comparable, just that the ratios of good things to bad things in both cases are proportionate to the ratios of good press to bad press, contradicting the claim of 'bias in media.'

 

[Cassius Critzer]

I would say you would be hard pressed to find any historian praising a monster like Pol Pot. But when you label a blowhard braggert shamelessly self-promoting tinplated demigod like Trump as being equivilent to Pol Pot, then you are insulting the countless victims of genocide.

It's a genuine example of posting in a polemical style.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I would say you would be hard pressed to find any historian praising a monster like Pol Pot. But when you label a blowhard braggert shamelessly self-promoting tinplated demigod like Trump as being equivilent to Pol Pot, then you are insulting the countless victims of genocide.

It's a genuine example of posting in a polemical style.

Thing is that you are ignoring the context. Again, the comparison was not about the specifics of bad things done, it was about the ratio of good press to bad as related to the ratio of good things done to bad. That's no disservice to the victims of genocide. I mean, Trump as compared to Pol Pot isn't a comparison I make every day, but in the context I can't think of a better example off the top of my head. Okay, I could if I gave it some effort maybe, but 90% bad press because they do 90% bad things is a pretty narrow field. I can't fault Hobbs for using the one that came to mind.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The treatment of white women is more responsible for Haiti's current state of affairs than the Duvalier family?

Nice. So...you think President Trump is somehow equivalent to Pol Pot?

I would say you would be hard pressed to find any historian praising a monster like Pol Pot. But when you label a blowhard braggert shamelessly self-promoting tinplated demigod like Trump as being equivilent to Pol Pot, then you are insulting the countless victims of genocide.

It's a genuine example of posting in a polemical style.

You're both being intentionally obtuse. Retreating behind abject literalism to avoid a real discussion is bottom shelf, low-effort trolling and obnoxious.

I can't fault Hobbs for using the one that came to mind.

Well the first one to come to mind that wasn't Hitler. I try and mix things up.

 

[Ajidica]

I prefer to compare Trump to a less honest or competent Jacob Zuma.
Mild xenophobia? Check
Party took forever and a day to do anything about him? Check
Regulatory capture? Check
Rampant cronyism and violation of democratic norms? Check

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well the first one to come to mind that wasn't Hitler. I try and mix things up.

Keeps things interesting. Good work. It's also wise to keep other examples of atrocity in leadership from just fading into Hitler's shadow, lest people forget that he is unfortunately not unique.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

And because I'm going to have to spell it out (and talking down on @Berzerker and @Cassius Critzer is kind of fun) -

Abject literalism is how I'd define this behavior:

"If I could, I'd give you the moon"

"You can't give someone the moon. Hillary Clinton is crooked AF"

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The notion of a fair and balanced news media is stupid on the face of it. I don't want my news media to be fair for the sake of being fair. I want it to be factually accurate. That means some people are going to look bad, because they are bad.

I remember when the right called liberals snowflakes. Now you can't go a day without someone in the administration complaining of bias when they point out the things they did are in fact, things they did. Who's the real snowflake?

 

[Zkribbler]

Meanwhile in Panama, there's an effort to oust the Trump organization from management of the Trump International Hotel.