this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
433 points (96.8% liked)
Videos
14115 readers
536 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You're making the mistake of thinking facts and good journalism are at all what Trump sycophants care about. To you and I it looks like the journalist did a good job and won the exchange, but all 'they' see is a white man yelling at an uppity immigrant about mocking violent crime in the US.
Nobody cares what Trump sycophants think. They are already voting for Trump and nothing is going to change that.
To a reasonable person who is unmotivated to vote (the REAL demographic that needs to be courted), this makes the Trump team look absolutely deranged.
I mean, we're talking about people that still, to this day despite all the evidence, are unsure about who they should vote for. If you're trying to convince me that the undecideds are mental giants looking for the perfect rational argument to sway them one way or the other then you're fighting an uphill battle.
Is the person I am replying to a Trump sycophant? They weren't writing as if they are.
Their writing understands how this can look. Doesn't make them a sycophant.
edit: their
They didn't say how it CAN look, they said:
What it looks like solely to Trump supporters was an addition of yours that they did not even imply.
It's because you're not reading the entire thing and stopped paying attention when they used the word "won." Go back and reread the entire paragraph.
Okay, here is the entire paragraph. Please point out what I am missing:
The rest of the paragraph?
Replace the word "won" with "got what he wanted from"
So if I change what was literally said, it means something else. Yes, that's usually the case.
What is your definition of won? Because that's what it means.
My definition of it being "quite clear" that he "won" in this case is that everyone agrees. We do not all agree.
What did the journalist gain by confronting him? Nothing we didn't already know.
That would highly depend on the journalist's audience and their intent in asking the question. Considering he was Venezuelan and representing a Spanish-language outlet, I'm guessing he wanted it on record that Trump was making shit up about Venezuela.
It is good to have these things on record, isn't it?
The rest of the paragraph makes it clear the writer is speaking from how donald's advisor (and sycophants) see it. ie:
Not 'only valid', not 'we'. It is not absolute proof, but, if you consider yourself a rational arguer then it is your duty to interpret statements in the best light possible.
Or "the best result" being that he is the "clear" winner.
Does that include statements like "they're eating the dogs in Springfield" and "schools are forcing children to have gender reassignment surgery?"
How about "she became black?"
Technically yes, you should evaluate those statements in the best light possible with the intention of rebutting with a valid counter-argument that results in a rational conclusion. Absurd declarations are typically the easiest to do so.
In your examples even the moderators evaluated it in their best light. They didn't jump to declaring donald "the dumbest person alive" and/or "pro-immigrant executions" (although I would have found it hilariously entertaining). They simply said "here is our evidence disproving that claim", and that is more than enough.
Back to the point of this discussion, you're jumping to Ad Hominems instead of evaluating their good argument: That the 'still(?!) undecideds' will probably not agree with the interpretation that the journalist won because they're idiots.
What ad hominems did I make to the OP? Please quote me.
Also, I'm sorry, the "best possible light" interpretation of "she became black" is that it isn't racist. It's racist. Not considering it racist is pretty fucking disgusting.
You've edited the first comment I replied to so I cannot quote you.
This is an ad hominem though, as you're attacking the arguer's morals instead of employing a proper argument.
As for the example "she became black", in the context it was uttered Trump is arguing in his frenetic junk speech, that Kamala was using her mixed race to her advantage and gave examples where she appealed to her Indian or Black heritage distinctly due to the context in an attempt to manipulate that core audience. He makes no value judgments on those races or uses it to belittle them (as far as I can recall), which detracts from the racism accusation (although, obviously he is but I can't be bothered to dredge up all that BS). He is simply saying: "she's blatantly pandering". An argument that I begrudgingly agree with (I hate that I do trust me).
That said, while his argument is sound, I am unconvinced because I don't blame her for pandering to people that share her heritage. If I could I would be too in her shoes, and frankly the obvious counter of "Trump also panders to those that share his heritage (white incels)" is unnecessary but implied in her rolling of eyes / mocking facial expressions.
Edit: Indian and Black -> Indian or Black
Nonsense. He's a racist. He has a very, very long history of racism.
I clearly agree with you. The point is that his argument "Kamala is abusing her mixed heritage to pander to those audiences" is the best way to interpret the argument to come to rational conclusions.
In my counter-argument I simply state the premises: The candidates job is to win (implied), both candidates are pandering to their heritage, and accusations of pandering are an unpersuasive form criticism as it is expected from rational voters. Therefore, I do not find his complaint that her pandering is unfair, abusive or even remotely persuasive to vote for him instead.
If you want to pile on a rhetorical argument that he is racist and shouldn't be voted for you'd be preaching to the choir, but as you can see accusing your arguer of being racist is both irrelevant and counter-productive to coming to the same conclusion in the end.
No it isn't. The best way to interpret that argument to come to the rational conclusion is to interpret is AS RACIST.
Jesus Christ you are bending over backward to not make an obviously racist comment, which he has since repeated after being called out on the racism, is not racist. He literally did it at the debate. There is nothing irrelevant or counter-productive about saying what is true.
And if you agree that he is a racist, I have no idea why you are being so charitable to the extremely racist thing he keeps repeating.
Because I prefer rational arguments as they are the best ones for elucidating Truth, not appeals to emotional ones. I'd rather know I was right for good reasons than just join the mob right or not. In this case anyone could have accused Kamala of 'being black' and I could refute it without needing to bring racism claims into it.
Interesting that you use the word 'charitable' as the Principle of Charity is literally what I'm talking about.
Edit: bring
Cool. The truth is he said something racist. He's been informed it was racist and he keeps repeating it.
Stop sealioning.
Seriously, you're a mod. Do better.
I am not a mod in this community and you are sealioning. You can argue away literally everything racist Trump has ever said with your "charity" approach. Because he can be this explicit and you still give him the benefit of the doubt. You can be just as charitable and say that the "immigrants are eating dogs" claim isn't racist. And I wouldn't be surprised if you do the same sort of sealioning on that one.
No, I'm not entertaining your tried and true slippery slope of straw man accusations when you lose an argument. Be better, because this schtick is getting old and abusive. I've done nothing but politely explain my quite reasonable position and only answered your questions as best I can. Continuing on at this point would be sealioning as you've obviously tilted into direct attacks on me and to continue this to your embarrassment would only serve to further your agenda of getting a report enforced.
Have a good day Squid. Feel free to read up on that Principle of Charity link I previously supplied for a better understanding of rational argumentation.
Again, I'm not a moderator here and I also never flagged anything you said. Turn down the paranoia about 50 notches.
Also, you initially replied to me. I didn't tell you to. If you don't like my "schtick" and talk to me unsolicited anyway, that's not really my problem.