Does anyone beside an original poster read comments? On mass media sites, there are often so many comments that reading all of them would take days, and some individual ones are as long as the article they're responding to. On little-read blogs like this one, comments are usually read only by the original poster and if the poster responds to them at all the response would only be seen by whoever commented.
In this case, however, I want to respond to a comment because I think the issues it raises go beyond those of a dialogue between two people; they're issues we're all hearing about daily.
Earlier this month I wrote about Brexit and what it meant to me. In that post, I said, "when Brexit passed, I thought, 'Uh-oh. If that happens there, there's a good chance that this clown Donald Trump could get elected here.' (Trump people who feel insulted by that characterization: Think back to 2015 and you'll recall that you felt the same way. How easily we forget such things and end up supporting an admitted sex offender.)"
I was referring to the 2005 Hollywood Access recording of Trump talking to other men while on a bus taking him to do a cameo appearance on a soap opera. The Washington Post published the recording in 2016.
A man named James, one of the few who reads this blog, took offense to my characterization:
The level of unfairness in American society is not much higher than it was fifteen years ago. Indeed, three people near George W. Bush at Trump's inaugural address independently verified that his response to it was, “That was some weird shit."
I think James is guilty of the blindness I'm talking about. He, like many Trump supporters, seem to have read only a part of the Hollywood Access recording, the "grab them by the pussy" part, and this they dismiss as what Trump called "locker room talk."
Oh please. When have you heard men in their late fifties talk that way to impress people far lower on the social totem pole than they are? That's right, never. In any case, those defenders are ignoring this part of the recording:
James is guilty a couple of logical fallacies. One is that it matters that Trump said what he did during a private conversation. It doesn't. At all.
Another that James and others are guilty of, in a tiresome way, is something popularly called "whataboutism." The phrase has been used since the 1970s and Trump's you'll hear it used on Fox News much the way James uses it here, in reference to Bill Clinton's behavior while in office. (They have to go back twenty years because Obama's presidency was free of any scandals.)
Whataboutism is an attempt to discredit an opponent by calling them hypocrites.
Here's a sample of its pattern:
I shouldn't have gotten political. I'm not smart enough to opine on a lot of this. We're all having a hard time not raising political things these days, though. I look at profiles on dating sites and see that many more women use Trump as a litmus test. Some say if you don't like him, don't bother messaging them. Others say the same if you do like him.
Advice to people on the right and the left: Read reporting by the Associated Press. It's journalism that focuses on being scrupulously fact-based. You will never hear of AP reporters getting awards for being great literary journalists, but they do get awards for good reporting. It's dull, just-the-facts writing, designed to be cut-from-the-bottom, inverted pyramid reporting so the first paragraphs are so heavily loaded they can be a chore to read. But you will never hear Trump call the Associated Press "fake news," his preferred phrase for reporting that riles him.
In this case, however, I want to respond to a comment because I think the issues it raises go beyond those of a dialogue between two people; they're issues we're all hearing about daily.
 |
| Donald J. Trump. |
Earlier this month I wrote about Brexit and what it meant to me. In that post, I said, "when Brexit passed, I thought, 'Uh-oh. If that happens there, there's a good chance that this clown Donald Trump could get elected here.' (Trump people who feel insulted by that characterization: Think back to 2015 and you'll recall that you felt the same way. How easily we forget such things and end up supporting an admitted sex offender.)"
I was referring to the 2005 Hollywood Access recording of Trump talking to other men while on a bus taking him to do a cameo appearance on a soap opera. The Washington Post published the recording in 2016.
A man named James, one of the few who reads this blog, took offense to my characterization:
To call him "an admitted sex offender" is so ludicrous that it barely rates a response. He bragged about being able to do something (in what he thought was a private conversation with a guy he clearly was trying to impress) that there is absolutely zero evidence that he has ever done. A sad, stupid, sexist remark, nothing more. Which is why it didn't cost him the presidency.I have never met James in person, but I feel that I know him as well as you can know someone online and from what I know of James, he is an intelligent, good and decent man with strong faith in his god and I value his opinions. But there's a blindness that has inflicted us all, on the left and the right. That blindness and it's been caused by anger, anger that had been brewing for some time. Many would say it was due to erupt. I agree, but I'd say the speed and severity of its eruption has been exacerbated by Donald Trump and that the way it's come out is damaging America.
Anytime you start to work yourself up into a righteous huff about how terrible a person DJT is, you should call Bill Clinton to mind. In addition to a lot of other factors, WJC and his lovely wife did more to enable Trump to be elected than anything else. After he used and discarded his poor intern and lied about it to Congress and the American people without paying any meaningful price, where exactly did you think American politics would go ?
You said plenty of other ridiculous things, but I'll let those pass.
The level of unfairness in American society is not much higher than it was fifteen years ago. Indeed, three people near George W. Bush at Trump's inaugural address independently verified that his response to it was, “That was some weird shit."
I think James is guilty of the blindness I'm talking about. He, like many Trump supporters, seem to have read only a part of the Hollywood Access recording, the "grab them by the pussy" part, and this they dismiss as what Trump called "locker room talk."
Oh please. When have you heard men in their late fifties talk that way to impress people far lower on the social totem pole than they are? That's right, never. In any case, those defenders are ignoring this part of the recording:
Donald J. Trump: You know and ...Trump's supporters have praised him for being someone who would disrupt the usual order of things. He has and is doing so. That's not a good thing. Part of what's kept America's government stable over the centuries is its slowness to change. Americans have always favored stability and liked change to occur over time, after long periods of discussion and compromise.
Unknown: She used to be great. She’s still very beautiful.
Trump: I moved on her, actually. You know, she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it. Unknown: Whoa.
Trump: I did try and fuck her. She was married.
Unknown: That’s huge news.
Trump: No, no, Nancy. No, this was [unintelligible] — and I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, “I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.” I took her out furniture. I moved on her like a bitch. But I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.
James is guilty a couple of logical fallacies. One is that it matters that Trump said what he did during a private conversation. It doesn't. At all.
Another that James and others are guilty of, in a tiresome way, is something popularly called "whataboutism." The phrase has been used since the 1970s and Trump's you'll hear it used on Fox News much the way James uses it here, in reference to Bill Clinton's behavior while in office. (They have to go back twenty years because Obama's presidency was free of any scandals.)
Whataboutism is an attempt to discredit an opponent by calling them hypocrites.
Here's a sample of its pattern:
- Person A makes claim X.
- Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
- Therefore, X is false.
I shouldn't have gotten political. I'm not smart enough to opine on a lot of this. We're all having a hard time not raising political things these days, though. I look at profiles on dating sites and see that many more women use Trump as a litmus test. Some say if you don't like him, don't bother messaging them. Others say the same if you do like him.
Advice to people on the right and the left: Read reporting by the Associated Press. It's journalism that focuses on being scrupulously fact-based. You will never hear of AP reporters getting awards for being great literary journalists, but they do get awards for good reporting. It's dull, just-the-facts writing, designed to be cut-from-the-bottom, inverted pyramid reporting so the first paragraphs are so heavily loaded they can be a chore to read. But you will never hear Trump call the Associated Press "fake news," his preferred phrase for reporting that riles him.
Now that Sec of Defense and 4 star general Mattis has resigned over another impulsive move by POTUS, you would think that at least some supporters of the current occupant of the White House would (at least) begin to wonder if just maybe we were being led in the wrong direction. Despite cries of "fake news" by POTUS, Putin, Iran and Assad are delighted we are leaving Syria. The Kurds are horrified. And no, ISIS has not been defeated (yet).
ReplyDeleteBill Clinton showed poor judgment in a personal matter. The current POTUS shows poor judgment on a daily basis in matters that have an impact on all of us, both in this country and around the world. There really is no comparison.
At the time, I was more forgiving of Bill Clinton's actions than I am now because I liked his policies. Now, though, I see him as just another man who let power blind him in a way that made him think he had rights that didn't apply to others. True, he probably got little if any affection from his wife, but if was going to have a mistress he could've chosen someone more appropriate, as had presidents before him.
Delete