your words are very big and red he also used the word animal to refer to some nasty terrorist types who murdered hostages on 2 occasions if you wish to get numerically historic. off hand i think he used the word "animals" as a singular response to a question about some civilian hostages that were taken then murdered.
The "original group" was illegal immigrants with brown skin, from south of the US. That's who Trump is talking about there, the relevant group Trump's immigration policies, his taking ICE off the leash, targets. They supposedly have many bad guys among them, which Trump routinely introduces in several guises to justify the immigration policies directed at all of them. MS-13 was just an example of the kinds of bad guys the brown skin illegals harbor - a subset of a subset of the original group, standing for the whole in Trump's rhetoric. In other speeches he sets up Mexican rapists and drug smugglers and so forth in this role. The sensational media got it right.
That is the obvious interpretation. That is the default, consistent with Trump's standard rhetoric over the past couple of years. If you have evidence and argument that Trump was doing something unusual for him, abnormal, unique, different from his standard schtick, then it needs to accompany your extraordinary assertion. You could, for example, post references to Trump's commonly and clearly differentiating brown skin illegals in general from specific bad guys he means to focus on, a reference to Trump's speaking at some length - three consecutive tweet's worth, say - about brown skin illegals without describing and characterizing them by the bad guys they harbor, or the like.
those with a modicum of information retention should be able to see the common thread among the swing voters who put the current president into power. it would be surprising for the president to suddenly offer different core principals to what had rallied his winning margin(all be those state seats being already jerrymandered & given extra voting rights than other states). the ground swell towards nationalism be it saintly or sadistic is still the theme. building walls blocking foriegn company advantage(visually if not actually) doing things to bolster military ideation among civilians whom feel distopian to the government system.. etc etc add nausium. ironically i notice there is still no discussion about outsourcing jobs and who is responsible for it and who should pay for the massive cost to the us society that it has created.... not to mention tax haven facilitation to companies to allow them to profit from a nationalised brand while not paying any nationalised tax. the selective subjectivity of the over all problem that people spouting off in the media whish to rant & rave about clearly shows such people to be very questionable morally when it comes to generalised democratic ideology. unless you label the country as capitalist and so money comes before people and the countrys economy.(in which case ignore everything i just posted)
Except for the one that I quoted where his rhetoric exactly and explicitly matched what I've been saying: “Few communities have suffered worse at the hand of these MS-13 thugs than the people of Long Island. They have transformed peaceful parks and beautiful quiet neighborhoods into bloodstained killing fields. They are animals.”
I have provided both the actual context of the specific excerpt in-question as well as a second explicit example of him saying word for word exactly what I've been claiming. You have offered a wave-waving "this is what he's always like" rationalization. My evidence is specific, contextual and unambiguous. Yours is supposition and generalization. In any court in the land, my case has been made; yours has not. The onus is on you to show, anywhere near as explicitly as I have, that your stance has any merit.
It also matches what I'm saying. You can tell, because I said it about that very rhetoric, your example. That's completely insufficient. I could as well claim it as more evidence for me - as I did, above. It's an observation, not a rationalization, and I made at least two fairly specific references to illustrate it- to the Mexican rapists and the undefined brown skinned drug dealers, both Trumpian memes with which you are certainly familiar (because everyone is - Trump talks like that frequently and has for a couple of years now). It's a repetition of the single example already at hand, which begs the question, and it is not at all what you need to oppose my assertion or provide evidence for your extraordinary claims. Some suggestions appear above in my posting, if you are at a loss - here, I'll repeat them:
No it doesn't. He is explicitly referring to MS-13. He says so. You're the first person in the world who thinks that 'specific and explicit' is somehow insufficient, while 'generalized inference' is not a logical fallacy. It's a generalization. And it's beyond the scope of this article. I don't disagree that Trump is a pig. Which is why they shouldn't have to misrepresent the context to demonstrate it. The media should not stoop to his level of faking the news. In none of which does he call them animals. The only way you can make any case is by broadening the scope of your argument to include other dissimilar examples (i.e. generalization), and then make an inference that this one is supposedly the same. You're welcome to call Trump a pig for his dehumanizing of peoples - and I agree - but this article is a poor example of it. And this article is what the thread is about. The media had to decontextualize it to make it a readable story - for those who don't mind yellow journalism. That's National Enquirer "Boy will die if he laughs!" stuff.
Why yes. That's the problem - that's the complaint, the observation, the criticism. That's what I'm pointing at. When he talks about his immigration policies and the nature of illegal immigration, especially illegal immigrants with brown skin, it's via references to some specific bad guys they harbor - he uses those specific bad guys to represent illegal brown skin immigrants. Look, you appear to have lost track of the thread. I'm claiming this latest is an example of Trump's standard rhetoric, that since Trump inveterately uses bad guys as stand-ins for illegal brown skin immigrants as a whole - that's how he always talks about illegal brown skin immigrants in general, that's how he justifies his policies directed at illegal brown skin immigrants in general - this is more of the same, just as it appears to be. That's the default. To argue against the default, standard, established reality, you would need good evidence and sound reasoning. I provided suggestions, as you seem to be a bit lost - see above. I'm not the first person to point out that repeating yourself does not provide more evidence, and that specification is not generalization. I also pointed out that it was the evidence I used to support my claim - a circumstance with implications you seem to have overlooked. It's not generalizing - that's going from small to big. It's the exact opposite: I'm specifying - pointing to this specific event as joining a pre-established larger pattern, going from big to small, using the larger context to label the smaller thing ? So? He has a repertoire of pejoratives - not a large one, but enough so he doesn't repeat himself every time. You mistake the direction of argument. It's from the default, established reality to the specific example. You have it backwards. The sensationalizing media contextualized it. The context is the past two years of Trump rhetoric, of which this was the latest example. The only way you can miss the purposeful and accomplished rhetorical effect of Trump's comments is by carefully isolating each sentence of them from everything Trump has said, and carefully removing from your awareness the nature of his target audience, and then granting his slippery riff the benefit of the doubt in this decontextualized bubble - granting him the most favorable interpretation of his vague riffing, as he appeared to have lost contact with his touchstone of MS-13 (hundred bucks says he has no idea who MS-13 are, or how they emerged, or anything else about them except that they are bad guys with brown skin).
We'll make two brief points, here: (1) You haven't the courage to answer the posts before you. (2) Despite pretending concern that the press deceives the reader by omitting context, you want the press to tell the story with the least amount of context possible in order to deceive the reader. We get it, Dave: You're not a supremacist, but just want to act like one. Red-ink your screech all you want; it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong, nor that you ducked out and ran away. If you really want to beg my attention, the best thing to do would get a point worth addressing.
Reminds me of the scene from the movie The Godfather where the guy says, "They're animals anyway, so let them lose their souls." In that case it was a Mafia boss deciding they would start selling drugs, but only in black neighborhoods. Seems similar...
I've answered the posts that are on-topic. I ignored content that is wasting photons with off-topic ego-stroking. You specifically are on ignore, because you are incapable to engaging in a conversation for longer than one post without trolling. A pity - because you could have some good conversation, if you'd just stop with the trolling. False. You're a troll. Shame. Also false. Just as you are not wrong, you just have a different interpretation, Also false. I've indulged way more of this troll-fest than it deserves.
Technically correct, and an ostensibly non-partisan media shouldn't make such a mistake, but in the larger context (which is a more inclusive definition of truth), Trump uses MS-13 to refer to all illegal Mexican and South American immigrants. Even though it's not like American citizens don't form gangs too.
No, it's not - either "technically correct", or a mistake by the media reporting on it. In the larger context - including in that link - Trump is referring to the people he is deporting, removing, etc, as he promises: that would be illegal immigrants with brown skin. That Trump uses MS-13 gang members as representative of the people he is promising to deport etc is bad enough. That he then calls them "animals" and so forth is striking and newsworthy. That is the default, standard interpretation. If anyone wishes to demonstrate that this time, unlike the many other times, Trump was limiting his remarks to MS-13 specifically and the governmental policies aimed at MS-13 specifically, they are welcome to make that attempt - they would need evidence and argument. I have provided suggestions others may occur to the interested. One could attempt to show that Trump knows what MS-13 is, who's in it, and how his immigration law enforcement singles them out without afflicting the other illegal and brown-skinned, say. There are a variety of approaches. But in the absence of such demonstration, the media account seems accurate. Belatedly so.
I think you make good points, but if you just consider one sentence out of context, he is referring to MS-13, and I hate them as much as any gang or Mafioso, including Trump who is himself the head of a criminal organization (his business, not government). Trump can lie all he wants, but the press can't get away with even one thing that could be interpreted as incorrect.
#supremacism | #WhatTheyVotedFor Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! [#hindsight | #interpret | #duh] — Answers abound. Detail of cartoon by Mr. Fish, 30 November 2014. The way of things in the moment seems to be that as context emerges and resolves— The night before Trump delivered his first speech to Congress in February 2017, he huddled with senior adviser Jared Kushner and Miller in the Oval Office to talk immigration. The president reluctantly agreed with suggestions that he strike a gentler tone on immigration in the speech. Trump reminded them the crowds loved his rhetoric on immigrants along the campaign trail. Acting as if he were at a rally, he recited a few made-up Hispanic names and described potential crimes they could have committed, such as rape or murder. Then, he said, the crowds would roar when the criminals were thrown out of the country—as they did when he highlighted crimes by illegal immigrants at his rallies, according to a person present for the exchange and another briefed on it later. Miller and Kushner laughed. A senior White House official said that while the president did discuss the "crowd enthusiasm for crackdowns on criminal aliens," the official disputed that Trump used Hispanic names to illustrate the point. (Dawsey and Miroff↱) —we are reminded more and more clearly that context constrictions requiring incompetence, at best, or even incompetency of President Trump are, indeed, extraordinary assertions. Containing the president wholly within his own epsitemic bubble without any functional connection to anything else is a tempting concession, but the implications are themselves the stuff sensationalism dreams of. To wit, we have in this thread at least one example of a "larger context"↑ requiring contextual isolation and constriction↑; when challenged with broader context, the argument falls back↑ to "a matter of interpretation", explaining that, the President's words "definitely cannot be judged accurately without knowing the context", but refuses to describe the questions of context↑ on the grounds that other people might not see what the argument wants them to see, misrepresents arguments↑ in order to dismiss larger context as irrelevant, describes consideration↑ of contextual information as some manner of omission, and can only insist↑ on reiteration↑ of constricted context and demanding↑ others submit arguments and evidence, which in turn are already dismissed as irrelevant in order to constrict consideration explicitly to only what the constricted argument considers on-topic↑: 1) Appeal to larger context. 2) Assert constricted context. 3) Disqualify any context outside asserted constriction ... (a) ... and then demand people post what has already been arbitrarily disqualified. And the fact that such uninformed opinions might exist is one thing; stubborn insistence on ignorance, however, is extraordinary. Or, at least, it should be; the way of things these days can be interpreted to disagree. At some point, however, we accept such brutish insistence is not an accident. ____________________ Notes: Dawsey, Josh and Nick Miroff. "The hostile border between Trump and the head of DHS". The Washington Post. The Washington Post. 26 May 2018. WashingtonPost.com. 26 May 2018. https://wapo.st/2LwMjpj
Anything the press reports as an implication derogatory to any Republican - and Trump is a representative Republican - will be interpreted as incorrect by a large fraction of the media, punditry, and US population. In what sense do you hope to "get away" with such reports?
You don't need media. You just have to watch and listen to video on you tube. Obviously "they are all animals" according to Trump. ( certainly everyone he is deporting) can't be any clearer.
