 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: hearing, or not hearing, threats
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
I thought it was fascinating that, amongst my Facebook friends, many of them don't hear Trump's words as threatening or inciting violence, and considered this video dishonest, a twisting of his views.
Similarly, many of them don't perceive Dobson's essay about transgender people as a threat directed towards trans people.
Others clearly hear both as threats.
Why the difference in perception? What are people hearing, or failing to hear? And why?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
It is said that you hear what you are primed to hear -- what you expect. An allied phenomenon -- you see what you expect to see. This is how stage magicians work it. It is also why untrained people freeze, when planes fall or gunmen step into waiting rooms with AKs blazing. To see and hear truly and quickly is something you have to learn -- they teach cops and soldiers.
And so I must assume that if you expect a tiny-handed vulgarian, then you hear vulgarisms and threats. If you see a savior standing one step below the Father and the Son, you hear the word of salvation. There is a long, sad history in humanity of people seeing a savior in persons who were clearly and shatteringly not.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There is a long, sad history in humanity of people seeing a savior in persons who were clearly and shatteringly not.
One for the quotes file. And for my sig!
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Brenda is right, and it is a fundamental part of perception (read my thesis if you want more). Everyone interprets what they perceive (see, read, hear) based on what they already believe. Your world-view impacts the way you perceive, and for things you perceive to change your world-view is very difficult.
That is why so many people fail to realise that some people are talking bullshit, while others can clearly see it is manipulative. It is not out of stupidity, it is because people have a view that cannot encompass what they are hearing. It is like most people having to come to terms with the impact of quantum reality on what we see around us.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
This is all good stuff. Though we probably should remind ourselves it applies to "us" as much as "them".
I think there is another point to be made concerning direct and indirect threats. A direct threat is painfully clear to both recipient and observer alike.
But an indirect threat will be read as a threat by an affected party because of the consequences of what is said (and in passing, that also demonstrates why an innocent comment can be seen as a threat too). An observer may have to stop and work through those consequences for any affected party before fully understanding what sort of threat may be implicit.
On that basis, the piece by Dobson is the most tendentious load of high-octane rubbish. But I don't think it contains any direct threats. That has to be worked out if you are not a transperson or otherwise familiar with the issues. The video piece, on the other hand, is I think doing something different - it is trying to link an already threatening series of tropes to a wider foreseeable outcome based on history - thereby showing the risk is wider than is warranted by insisting on sticking to its original context.
Actually, that means the critiques are correct in a leaden sort of literal sense. The Dobson piece doesn't utter a direct threat, and the video does involve de-contextualizing Trump's rhetoric. But we are talking about a constituency that is very literal-minded anyway.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Similarly, many of them don't perceive Dobson's essay about transgender people as a threat directed towards trans people.
Doesn't it depend on what you think of as a "threat"? Dobson's essay is not an incitement to violence against trans people. It doesn't encourage bands of self-righteous vigilantes to defend the sanctity of the bathroom (although it gets close in a couple of places), so in that sense it's not a "threat".
His essay is (mostly) something else. It's a denial that trans people exist, and in that sense it's a far more existential threat than the incitement of a spot of gay-bashing. But if you were someone who didn't think trans was a real thing, you're probably going to see that as a a simple statement of fact, rather than any kind of threat.
The threat of physical violence follows a couple of logical steps down the road - because these men dressed as women are weird perverted men, the only possible reason for them to go into a women's bathroom must be sexual, and so therefore they are a threat to your womenfolk (it's Dobson, so it's also male headship through and through). And because these people are a threat, it is your responsibility to protect your wives and daughters from them...
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Do you mean this segment from Dobson:
quote:
If you are a married man with any gumption, surely you will defend your wife’s privacy and security in restroom facilities. Would you remain passive after knowing that a strange-looking man, dressed like a woman, has been peering over toilet cubicles to watch your wife in a private moment? What should be done to the pervert who was using mirrors to watch women and girls in their stalls? If you are a dad, I pray you will protect your little girls from men who walk in unannounced, unzip their pants and urinate in front of them. If this had happened 100 years ago, someone might have been shot. Where is today’s manhood? God help us!
?
If so, I can see how it might be read as incitement to violence; certainly he's using the same sort of rhetoric against TG people as your average tabloid paper does against suspected paedophiles, which is pretty ugly as things go. Not sure though that you could make a charge of incitement stick...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
It's a dog whistle. Let those who have ears to hear, hear. Another practice that has a long melancholy tradition in the US.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
[..] Not sure though that you could make a charge of incitement stick...
Yeah, that's the bit where he walks closest to the line. I agree - it's not quite illegal. Dobson is not an idiot, and he has plenty of lawyers - he knows where the line is.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
Is this the time to point out the confusion in Dobson's rhetoric?
Women's facilities have cubicles (and only cubicles). When he talks about a "man" unzipping and urinating in front of your daughter, it's clear that this can't be happening in a ladies' room, because they don't have anywhere to urinate that is in front of anyone.
There are two places that people "unzip and urinate" in front of other people. In the men's room, standing at the urinals, and when a parent takes his children to the bathroom with him (either at home or in public).
Given the way Dobson thinks, I'm sure the idea of a Dad taking his small daughter into the men's room with him would make his head explode (and in any case, if you do take your small daughter into the men's room, as Dads do on a routine basis, you have to expect that there might be a urinating man in there.)
And if he was talking about a private family bathroom, the whole thing just makes no sense...
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
And he knows how to move the goalposts. Suddenly we're not talking about someone of unknown gender walking into a bathroom, shutting the stall door, and privately doing their business. Something, presumably, that has been going on since time began-- or at least since bathroom stalls were invented. Now suddenly, we're talking about people peering over the stall to spy on you or expose their genitals to you. Things that would be disturbing (at least in a woman's room) regardless of the person's gender.
And then there's the clear implication that Dobson and other opponents of bathroom access will be the ones peering over the stall door to see what you got going on under your skinny jeans... and they're packing.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I find it strange that one now seems to be expected to choose between Donald Trump as saviour and Donald Trump as antichrist. Whatever happened to just very unsuitable to be president of the USA ?
As far as the video is concerned, I consider it rather likely that any videos made about US politicians by their opponents would misrepresent their views. In the case of someone as much disliked as Donald Trump I would say it was a racing certainty.
I say US politicians because I can't generalise about the whole world, not in order to suggest that my own country is better.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I would point out that it isn't simply seeing what they want, re Trump. There is a real frustration with the status quo as well. Trump is not the answer to this, but he does play the part of a maverick. Also, regarding sources as in the vid link; Mother Jones is exactly the wrong venue to disseminate anti-Trump info if anyone wishes to change minds in his key demographic. Probably does the opposite.
As far as Dobson's rant, it may be a step or two from actually inciting violence in a legal sense, but it is exactly what it is doing in a practical sense.
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
This is all good stuff. Though we probably should remind ourselves it applies to "us" as much as "them".
No, it doesn't, because we are RIGHT!
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
There is not a whole bunch to be done about Trump; real estate moguls and politicians are wild hairs and are not going to listen to us. James Dobson, however, is billing himself as a voice of Christianity. He horrifies me.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
lilBuddha wrote:
quote:
No, it doesn't, because we are RIGHT!
Right!!
(Just for the avoidance of doubt, I was referring to the cognitive process itself, not any content).
I agree with you about your point concerning the vid's posting origin, and the general function of a maverick that Trump plays also.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
I agree with the point that the Trump attack video was making, but I did not like how it made it at all.
My main problem was that the music was way too heavy. Immediately, it put my back up as an obvious attempt to manipulate my emotions. It put me on my guard, as it suggested to me that the makers of the video were not going to present a fair view of Trump. To me, that is very bad.
Also, when I was a puppy solicitor, an old barrister said to me that it was better to have the judge focus on your good points than have them work out why your not so good points are wrong. There were some comparisons in that video that were spot on. Others were inapt. This video needs editing.
The barrister, a lovely humble fellow, had a splotch on his head like Mikhail Gorbachev.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Josephine
I think the answer to your question may be found in a combination of words from two Pauls.
Firstly, from Paul Simon's great song "The Boxer".
"I have squandered my resistance for a pocketful of mumbles, such are promises. All lies and jests, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
Secondly from Paul's second letter to Timothy.
"They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear."
I've always been intrigued by that phrase "itching ears". Trump is a peddler of quackery who has tapped into something that a significant number of your citizens actually want to hear.
So the real questions are, why do they want to hear it? What listening appetite is Trump feeding? What has created all these "itching ears"?
Similar arguments apply to the Dobson piece {which Leorning Cniht has effectively demolished BTW).
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
If that is true, B62, it means there has been a catastrophic failure in almost everything save the propagation of the most toxic, racist, bigoted and hateful.
It has to, really. I can't see any other logical conclusion.
So the real question, then, is why what should be the way of hope, fraternity and sorority, love and peace has failed so signally. If that's us (as we would like to think I hope), why have we failed so spectacularly?
Any answers to that would involve things about us. The vile and the repulsive will always be waiting in the shadows. You can rely on that.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Deep waters, Honest Ron. I find it very strange that, within the lifetime of some of us,
the disenfranchised and disregarded African Americans were given dignity, hope and a voice by Martin Luther King. Whereas today's angry WASPs and fellow travellers have been attracted by an egomaniac billionaire with false hair. How on earth has that happened? I find it hard to get my head around it.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
The simple answer to the question is that Trump IS a threat: he is a threat to public order because of the wild and extreme rants which he makes in the full knowledge that some of the people listening to them will see them as giving some sort of green light to pursue their own hatreds and prejudices and to commit violent assaults on others.
As for Mr Dobson, the answer is in his final paragraphs, where he quotes Genesis: If God created Man in his own image "... male and female, he created them..." then God's own image is both male and female. I've used that on a couple of people and it leaves them stranded, usually opening and closing the mouth silently (a bit like a fish on a slab!). Try it.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
L'Organist wrote: quote:
The simple answer to the question is that Trump IS a threat: he is a threat to public order because of the wild and extreme rants which he makes in the full knowledge that some of the people listening to them will see them as giving some sort of green light to pursue their own hatreds and prejudices and to commit violent assaults on others.
Nobody here would disagree with that (I think). But the question was "why do some people not see such rhetoric as threatening?".
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Because they agree with it, or are clueless, or it isn't on their radar at all?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I wonder whether Henry II's angry words about Becket (which were not"Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?", which probably would be incitement)would be treated as incitement: "What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and promoted in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born clerk!"
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
L'Organist wrote: quote:
The simple answer to the question is that Trump IS a threat: he is a threat to public order because of the wild and extreme rants which he makes in the full knowledge that some of the people listening to them will see them as giving some sort of green light to pursue their own hatreds and prejudices and to commit violent assaults on others.
Nobody here would disagree with that (I think). But the question was "why do some people not see such rhetoric as threatening?".
Because it was preceded by more than a decade of false persecution complex. The GOP has been peddling fear ever since '01. Fear of blacks, fear of Muslims, fear of gays, fear of women, fear of "godless atheists", fear of immigrants, fear of academics, fear of liberals, now fear of bathroom-stalking trans. It creates a paranoia-- so that when you start spewing hate-filled violent rhetoric it doesn't sound hate-filled or violent it sounds brave and courageous-- defending the weak against the strong. The fact that they've switch the name tags around so that the "weak" are enfranchised, wealthy and privileged and the "strong" are the marginalized, voiceless and powerless escapes notice.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
And calling them out on this is vain. Obama was supposed to take your guns. Boy, he hasn't left himself a lot of time, has he? More than seven years and he's asleep at the switch. Can he get them all by November, or you think January will do it? What about the US Army invading Texas, the prison camps in Walmart parking lots? Did that work out for you? When is that vaunted Sharia law, suspending the U S Constitution, going to be imposed? Haven't seen any sign of it.
There comes a point when all these phantom bogeys shade into mental illness.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
You forgot the death panels to decide granny's fate that are the true end goal of Obamacare. Yes, quite the to-do list for the next 6 months. Too bad he wasted so much time rebuilding the economy and lowering unemployment.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And calling them out on this is vain. Obama was supposed to take your guns. Boy, he hasn't left himself a lot of time, has he?
The fear that the gun-rights crowd has isn't generally quite as simple as "Obama / Hillary / Whoever will take all your guns away." It's a fear of creeping regulation.
You start with some regulation, then you add a little more, then a little more, and eventually the guns are gone. To them, saying "it's just a little common sense regulation" sounds like the proponents of the EEC saying "it's just a free trade area".
So they're defending every inch now - even some people who in private would agree that more regulation would be sensible - because they don't think they can defend their place on the slippery slope.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
It's pathological. If you look at other areas that are regulated, you can see that they do not ignite this angst. People do not vote to save themselves from those evil, socialist side impact air bags. When the meat inspection people insist that diseased animals may not go into your hamburger there is no outcry about how if you want anthrax in your dinner you will damn well get it.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Well, it's selective. The right-wing will, in fact, decry "bloated government" when it comes time to pay those meat inspectors or "government overreach" when new legislation is being introduced about how to process meat safely. And then when some kid gets sick or dies they will point and say "see! Government is inept! it can't be trusted to keep our kids safe!". Unless of course the kid is black, then it was his mom's fault, obviously.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
There was someone on the radio talking about the US election. His theory is that the distribution of people on the Republican-Democrat spectrum and on the committed-apathetic spectrum is such that it is more effective for candidates to try to encourage their own party supporters to go out and vote than to try to encourage lukewarm supporters of the other party to switch.
So if people are dealing in fear - fear of Mr Trump as some sort of immoral or unstable person on the one hand, or fear of immigrants or heavy-handed government on the other hand - then maybe that's what works.
Which on reflection is an argument for making voting compulsory...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And calling them out on this is vain. Obama was supposed to take your guns. Boy, he hasn't left himself a lot of time, has he?
The fear that the gun-rights crowd has isn't generally quite as simple as "Obama / Hillary / Whoever will take all your guns away." It's a fear of creeping regulation.
You start with some regulation, then you add a little more, then a little more, and eventually the guns are gone. To them, saying "it's just a little common sense regulation" sounds like the proponents of the EEC saying "it's just a free trade area".
So they're defending every inch now - even some people who in private would agree that more regulation would be sensible - because they don't think they can defend their place on the slippery slope.
But what you've described is really no different from what you said was too simplistic. Why will their position be under attack? Because "Obama / Hillary / Whoever will take all your guns away", of course.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Khuratokh2312
Apprentice
# 17634
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Deep waters, Honest Ron. I find it very strange that, within the lifetime of some of us,
the disenfranchised and disregarded African Americans were given dignity, hope and a voice by Martin Luther King. Whereas today's angry WASPs and fellow travellers have been attracted by an egomaniac billionaire with false hair. How on earth has that happened? I find it hard to get my head around it.
Well those angry WASPS felt disenfranchised too around the time of reverend King and have now swarmed around a new mad insect.
I will never forget the Tea Party rally led by Sarah Palin. Who, standing under the Washington monument, made a direct parallel between her movement and that of Martin Luther King...
A crowd made up entirely of angry white people. With the odd placard here and there calling Obama Hitler or the Anti-Christ.
The thing about Trump is, that the things he says aren't that different from what a lot of Republicans say in the corridors of capitol hill, they just tone it down a lot, come election time.
But even if he is elected, he will still have congress to contend with, and the Democrats and most of the Republican party despise Trump. He'll have even more trouble getting his way than Obama.
Posts: 4 | From: Leiden, Netherlands | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
.....Why the difference in perception? What are people hearing, or failing to hear? And why?
Confirmation bias
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi
Nobody here would disagree with that (I think). But the question was "why do some people not see such rhetoric as threatening?".
Actually I don't think that was the original question. Josephine was quite careful to put her question in a neutral fashion, rather than a 'why doesn't everyone feel the same as me ?' fashion.
My reaction to Donald Trump is not the same as L'Organist's. I find the prospect of him being elected president rather alarming and think it would be a threat to American security but I don't find his utterances threatening as such, or think that he wants to encourage violence by his supporters.
I am not sure why I hear things differently but I think that's what Josephine was getting at, rather than hoping to launch another Trump bashing thread.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
I tend to think Trump has finally jumped the shark called the federal judge overseeing the Trump University case a "Trump hater" because the judge is of Mexican heritage. Many of his insiders were trying to tell him to dial it back, but he has refused, instead telling his supporters to double down attacking the judge.
All of the sudden, the recent congressional delegation that endorsed him are running for the exits, decrying the racism of his statements.
There will be some diehards that will continue to support him, but many others are beginning to wake up and realize he does not have what it takes to be president
Now several states attorney generals are being investigated for allegedly taking bribes from Trump if they dropped their investigations of Trump university. Some have come out and admitted it. If proven, this would be an impeachable offense under the United States Constitution should he become the president.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Actually I don't think that was the original question. Josephine was quite careful to put her question in a neutral fashion, rather than a 'why doesn't everyone feel the same as me ?' fashion.
My reaction to Donald Trump is not the same as L'Organist's. I find the prospect of him being elected president rather alarming and think it would be a threat to American security but I don't find his utterances threatening as such, or think that he wants to encourage violence by his supporters.
I am not sure why I hear things differently but I think that's what Josephine was getting at, rather than hoping to launch another Trump bashing thread.
Thank you, moonlitdoor. That's exactly what I was getting at. I'm trying to understand why different people see or hear the exactly same thing, but react to it so very differently. I suppose confirmation bias is part of it, but I think there's something more going on. I don't really understand it. But I'd like to.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
I really want to know too. I wish I did, or could say something sensible. Instead, I will thank people who posted above, because large parts of the posts were profound, and parts beautiful.
I do like the person above who tried to dial things down by saying that they didn't think trump was mega-good or mega-bad, just unsuitable for the office of President.
I'm off to listen to some S&G now.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Hi Josephine,
I'd say that if you believe in free speech then there are a lot of people out there who are allowed to say things that you strongly disagree with and may find unpleasant. There are a lot of nutters out there (saying nothing about how many are "in here") and the Internet gives them all a platform.
One of the accepted limits on free speech is that incitement to violence is a crime. But people are innocent of crime until proven guilty. That's the way the benefit of the doubt goes.
Picking one line out of the Dobson piece, he saye
quote:
If this had happened 100 years ago, someone might have been shot.
which to my mind makes it quite clear that he's not expecting anyone to be shot in these present days, and that the "fighting" that he advocates is political effort only.
He clearly has strong beliefs - that "transgenderism" isn't real, a preference for gender-segregated toilet/washroom facilities, and a belief that deliberately using the wrong facilities is a "peeping-tom" type of misdemeanour. He sees a social trend that he really doesn't like.
But I don't see where he's inciting violence in support of those beliefs.
So from my point of view, if there's something that needs to be explained, it's why other people would consider this piece unacceptable, as having crossed the line that marks legitimate free speech from hate-crime.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...
Picking one line out of the Dobson piece, he saye
quote:
If this had happened 100 years ago, someone might have been shot.
which to my mind makes it quite clear that he's not expecting anyone to be shot in these present days, and that the "fighting" that he advocates is political effort only. ...
IME, most people who say, "We used to shoot those folks" rarely follow it up with, "I'm so glad we don't do that anymore." Let's change it from the hypothetical general to the 1st and 2nd persons: "We used to shoot people like you." OK, so maybe you won't actually get shot today, but it's still an expression of hostility and regret.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
And there is a cumulative power to these dog whistles. If veiled and indirect threats are mouthed often enough some loon is going to decide it is OK to take his shot. As you may see in your paper today. Which is why it is important to call out even minor aggressions like this. Enough straws, and some camel's back is going to crack.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
Just so. The current score seems to be - attacks by transgender people on others in public washrooms = 0. Attacks on transgender people in public washrooms = waaay too many.
It is sophistical to say a specific utterance must be given the benefit of the doubt if it cannot be linked to a specific attack. We should know by now that it is about creating a climate of fear and hostility in which - inevitably - more and more extreme reactions are made possible and permissable. You don't begin by gassing Jews - you begin by painting them as unpatriotic, cosmopolitan, owing allegiance to a shadowy, transnational conspiracy, enemies within, traitors, outcasts, punishable, threatening, evil...
I see the same mounting hysteria against Muslims: even something written in Arabic script - a decal on a police car saying 'Police' - a sample of calligraphy in a school textbook - is malign and to be feared.
You create the same nimbus around the transgendered - different, weird, perverted...
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Picking one line out of the Dobson piece, he saye
quote:
If this had happened 100 years ago, someone might have been shot.
which to my mind makes it quite clear that he's not expecting anyone to be shot in these present days, and that the "fighting" that he advocates is political effort only.
And in the very next line he says
quote:
Where is today’s manhood? God help us!
so apparently the lack of shooting is regrettable, another sign of the moral degeneration of the times. But perhaps God will help us, we'll regain our manhood, and the bullets will once again fly their righteous, God-sanctioned paths!
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
If you don't like where I draw the boundary of what we should tolerate in the name of free speech, where would you draw it ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
It's not just a matter of boundaries; it's also a matter of what you mean by "tolerance". If by "tolerance" you mean "legal", I'd agree that the boundary and its enforcement have to respect the other principles of law. If by "tolerance" you mean "give a pass", absolutely not. I have free speech too, and I and every member of my community have a right to use that free speech to call out hateful or threatening speech, even if it is within the bounds of legality. We do not have the right to silence hateful morons - which, all told, is for the best - but we do have the right - nay, an obligation - to raise our voices against them.
For example, one of my neighbours was recently confronted by the nutjob on the third floor, who told her, "I'm going to run you out of this building." That's probably vague enough to evade Canada's laws on threatening speech, but the literal meaning is still pretty vicious. And the context? They were in the elevator. Nobody else. She's 73 and frail, he's a hulk. Threatening? Yes. Call the cops? Not yet ...
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If you don't like where I draw the boundary of what we should tolerate in the name of free speech, where would you draw it ?
I didn't say Dobson's expression of his opinions shouldn't be protected as free speech. They can be odious but still not beyond the pale.
I was pointing out that it's perverse for you to suggest that his clear praise of past violence and regret that things have changed is nothing more than an indication of his support for peaceful political effort.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If you don't like where I draw the boundary of what we should tolerate in the name of free speech, where would you draw it ?
I didn't say Dobson's expression of his opinions shouldn't be protected as free speech. They can be odious but still not beyond the pale.
I was pointing out that it's perverse for you to suggest that his clear praise of past violence and regret that things have changed is nothing more than an indication of his support for peaceful political effort.
This gets at my question. I read Dobson's statement exactly the way Dave W does, and I can't for the life of me figure out why others don't see it. It's not threat at the level that would be illegal. But it's threatening nonetheless.
Russ, is the dogwhistle really so high-pitched that you hear nothing at all?
FWIW, I looked to see whether Dobson had anything to say about the Orlando shootings. Turns out, he did:
quote:
I am deeply saddened by the brutal murder of so many young men in Orlando, Florida. Please join us in praying for the wounded survivors and for the families who grieve the loss of their loved ones. Although radical Islamic terror groups claim victory while dispensing death and mayhem, we know the truth.
Eternal life comes only by faith in and obedience to the one true God and His Son, Jesus Christ. As John 13:34 tells us:
"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."
Which is interesting for a lot of reasons. The biggest thing is that he mentions the young men who were killed. No mention of the women. And one of the victims was 50, which isn't exactly young.
Is that a case of confirmation bias? Did he see "gay night club" and imagine that it was populated exclusively by young men, and never actually read any of the news? Especially the lists of victims of the shooting?
It's also interesting for what isn't there. No mention that the shooting was at an LGBT nightclub, or that the victims were LGBT.
He doesn't speak as plainly as the pastor of the pastor of Verity Baptist, Sacramento. By using dogwhistles instead of plan speech, Dobson maintains plausible deniability. And yet, his expressions of sadness make me think of these words from the Epistle of St. James.
quote:
With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers and sisters, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
The last post does bring into focus one reason why people hear things differently.
I don't believe in the whole concept of the dog whistle, which I consider nothing more than claiming a privileged understanding of what other people mean by their words, which neither the people themselves nor any other hearers can contradict.
If James Dobson makes an explicit statement that he is sorry about something, of course he might or might not be telling the truth. We are entitled to believe or disbelieve him according to our estimation of his character. But to claim a private understanding, whereby we know he in fact means something quite different, is for me completely illegitimate.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 1 2 3
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
