06-03-2024, 01:08 PM
(06-03-2024, 12:29 PM)Maxmars Wrote: When I make a statement that "Supporters are calling for riots and violence," in what way does that represent that NOT ALL supporters are calling for riots and violence?
It is not a matter of what is true or not when I invoke blanket judgements... it implies that the problem is in the supporters, not some, not a few, not radical elements, not some tiny proportion of people speaking of themselves and thier wishes,... it means exactly what it says... "supporters."
If one is a supporter, they are now subject to the assertion. It is an accusation against one example - cast upon anyone with whom 'they say' they agree. This is the toxicity of partisan misrepresentation. It creates a foundational premise upon which all manner of spurious aspersions can now rest. The title means what it says... that's why it was crafted and selected for publication... To engender a thought in the audience, "embrace this" is the purpose of the title, "this is what it is all about."
It is the one thing that causes me to repeatedly post that what most of us suffer from, is a lack of understanding of rhetoric... one of those "three R's" that was ejected by educator-leaders decades ago. Reading, Writing, Rhetoric... foundational elements of effective understanding of communication. Without a focus on rhetoric, we are only "victims" of whatever the people with the sanctioned platform produce. Hence, "You agree with the 'MAGA people'? You must be a violent element of society!"
The press reported on a single instance of some misguided person uttering a repugnant idea... and still you summarize as saying "some" Trump supporters... not ONE... but "some." (Yes, "one" is "some"... but that kind of litigiousness is far beneath us, save that for lawyer-town.) I only point out how easy it is, how casually we 'repackage,' the media by reinforcing their verbal 'sleight of hand.' And I won't posture to attack you on what you "didn't" say... but I am allowed to interpret just as anyone else is... so I can just as easily point out that you also never indicated just how unlikely this one persons' utterances represent a newsworthy political call for anti-social behavior.
You persist in evoking the January 6th "riot"... but no other riots? Can we take that up elsewhere please? This is about the Trump trial results engendering violence, no?
The January 6 riots were given as an example of riots that materialised after threats were made at that time. So it serves as a comparison. There is no generalisation as we clearly discuss some of his supporters and not all. Online threats and calls for violence and riots can be easily made by everyone in our days. It's not even something unexpected.
Imagine what could happen if Trump loses the election?! Although I think it's more likely he will win this time. I can speculate based on the history and rhetoric by this politician who seems to be able to influence a lot of people who believe their country is about to collapse or has collapsed and they need to take it back and so on.
