US Elections: CTRL ALT-RIGHT DELETE

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

6 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, I'm not buying it. That goes so far beyond faux pas, I can't believe you're defending it.

 http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/02578/comp_trump_2578529a.jpg

For what it's worth, I specifically addressed the media's deliberate usage of still photos, rather than actual videos of Kovaleski, in order to foster the impression that Trump's flailing looked anything like Kovaleski's non-spastic movements. It's addressed specifically as well BOTH in the Coulter article and in the Catholics 4 Trump article, at much greater length and in much greater detail. 

This is actually a pretty good example of how pictures can be used to represent an untruth. Trump was flopping his hands around during his entire impression. Kovaleski's hand doesn't flop and his movements are not spastic or "flailing."  The media took one second of video in which Trump's hand was flopped in a way that resembled Kovaleski's and, by immortalizing it as a picture, deliberately gives the impression that this was representative of the impression. It wasn't. 

 

**Edited also to add: I'm not "defending" his impression. I'm not sure there's really anything to defend. I'm interested in honestly characterizing it. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

1 hour ago, sologdin said:

yeah, i wasn't subjecting your position to discipline. are we agreed that bourgeois journalism is reasonably described by chomsky in manufacturing consent--reliable within an extremely narrow range of political possibility and inherently unreliable outside of that blinkered scope? it shall not be surprising, if so, that the press relies on a degree of ideologically directed apousia.

you knew of course that endorsing coulter's argument here was a molotov cocktail thrown into the thread? nothing wrong with that at all, if you're attempting to uncover the process at issue in your last paragraph.

It saddens me that you have such a low opinion of our fellow boarders! I came in here with complete confidence, sadly now shaken just a bit, that the other boarders would not, for even one second, make the mistake of conflating the messenger with the message. I maintained the utmost confidence in their ability to separate the quality of the argument - I think quite strong - from the qualities of the arguer (quite terrible - Ann Coulter that is, not me. I assume that everyone recognizes that I, in Socratic terms, am made of gold.) 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

When one is trying to make distinctions about just how a presidential candidate is mocking people, you've got nothing much to say.

@TrackerNeil

Both Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine have done unflattering impersonations (aka: "mockery") of Trump. Somehow I doubt that you consider this to be a serious or disqualifying character flaw... 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

25 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

For what it's worth, I specifically addressed the media's deliberate usage of still photos, rather than actual videos of Kovaleski, in order to foster the impression that Trump's flailing looked anything like Kovaleski's non-spastic movements. It's addressed specifically as well BOTH in the Coulter article and in the Catholics 4 Trump article, at much greater length and in much greater detail. 

This is actually a pretty good example of how pictures can be used to represent an untruth. Trump was flopping his hands around during his entire impression. Kovaleski's hand doesn't flop and his movements are not spastic or "flailing."  The media took one second of video in which Trump's hand was flopped in a way that resembled Kovaleski's and, by immortalizing it as a picture, deliberately gives the impression that this was representative of the impression. It wasn't. 

 

**Edited also to add: I'm not "defending" his impression. I'm not sure there's really anything to defend. I'm interested in honestly characterizing it. 

 We all spin down here, Nestor.

 

[Reny of Storms End]

If Trump wasn't trying to mock the guy why does he say just before moving his arms "you should see this guy..."? He does not say those words when trying to show the flustered reactions of Cruz and whatever general it was. Trump does not say "you should hear this guy", which would make for a must better case. He says to his audience "you should see this guy" and then starts moving about. 

 

ETA: I wanted to point out I saw that the catholics4trump article trys to wipe away my argument by claiming Trump always says "you should see this guy" when referring to words of another. 

[lokisnow]

Selectively reporting on only the most outrageous instance of X is not a sign of some nefarious cover up, nor is such selectivity unusual in our media, rather it is the usual practice.

The idea that it is less bad to mock a disabled person if you are also mocking non disabled people is complete nonsense. Individually call a black person and two white people the n-word and I'm sure everyone will agree that calling a black person the n-word is now less bad. Doesn't work that way.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Just now, lokisnow said:

Selectively reporting on only the most outrageous instance of mocking disability is not a sign of some nefarious cover up, nor is such selectivity unusual in our media, rather it is the usual practice.

The idea that it is less bad to mock a disabled person if you are also mocking non disabled people is complete nonsense. Call a black person and two white people the n-word and I'm sure everyone will agree that calling a black person the n-word is now probably less bad. Doesn't work that way.

I think there's a confusion of ideas going on here related to the ambiguity of the phrase "mock a disabled person." 

There's no doubt that Trump was mocking a disabled person. The question is whether Trump was mocking the DISABILITY of the disabled person. Disabled people should, I think, be subject to mockery on the same terms as non-disabled people. What should be off bounds, I think, is mocking their disability itself. The question is whether Trump was doing that. The issue is whether Trump was mocking his disability, and from the evidence provided, I think the answer is more likely than not that he was not. 

[Kalbear]

Given what we know of trump, chances are simply he was mocking the disability but was doing it badly and stereotypically. It was clear that he was mocking disabilities in general - this is not in dispute, right? 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Just now, Kalbear said:

Given what we know of trump, chances are simply he was mocking the disability but was doing it badly and stereotypically. It was clear that he was mocking disabilities in general - this is not in dispute, right? 

Highly disputed, at the moment! 

[Kalbear]

How is it in dispute? Coulter said it was him doing a "general retard" and that was your position too, right? Or are you taking a different position and stating that he wasn't even doing that?

[The Mance]

12 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

The issue is whether Trump was mocking his disability, and from the evidence provided, I think the answer is more likely than not that he was not. 

I don't think that's clear at all.

 

This video has all three mocking incidents back to back.  In both the Cruz and the General cases Trump's hands are both open-palmed, and flapping loosely from his wrists.  While in his imitation of Kovaleski his fingers are pinched together, and his hands are bent sharply at the wrists the whole time he is flapping his arms about.  Particularly his right hand.   

All three videos do show a similar movement.  And I'm willing to believe that Trump does have a catch-all "general retard" schtick for making fun of people.  But, at least according to these three instances, I think he clearly tweaked his movements just a bit to mock Kovaleski in particular.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

33 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Highly disputed, at the moment! 

It's only in dispute with you, Ann Coulter and some Trump supporters. 

And others have point out several reasons why this isn't a legitimate argument. The key fact, that he did the same thing with the general, is a stretch at best. He also primed his actions by saying you should LOOK at him, and then made a gesture that was similar to the journalist's physical appearance, and in general the gesture is known to be something that kids use as a form of mocking people with disabilities. Add in what Kal just wrote and your argument basically falls apart.

Plus, here's this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/08/02/donald-trumps-revisionist-history-of-mocking-a-disabled-reporter/

 

This ain't the hill to die on, Nestor.

[Shryke]

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yeah no. I found that to be one of the least convincing arguments I've ever read, and it's completely meaningless because last night Coulter gave a long interview in which she gleefully and repeatedly disparaged people with disabilities.

Also, the way he mocks the reporter and the way he mocks the general are very different. Watch the video again dude. 

You're a lot better than this Nestor...........

 

Clearly not.

Hence this ridiculous conversation.

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

[Shryke]

6 hours ago, Fez said:

He's actually not that far behind anymore. It took longer than expected, which is why a lot of people thought it wouldn't happen, but Clinton's convention bounce finally ended and the polls are basically back to where they were in late July. It looks like its back to maybe a +3 Clinton lead, whereas for most of August it was around +8. For a while it was just the not-so-great polling outfits that were showing the lead dropping, but now the good have started chiming in to.

Thing is, Trump hasn't gained any support, but Clinton has lost quite a bit to both Johnson and Stein. Because of how unmovable Trump's numbers are, I'm still confident in a Clinton win, but she needs to regain those voters who've been leaving her for third parties to make this a comfortable win again.

Third party support is overestimated. Beyond that, none of this is making Trump's path via the electoral college any more likely.

Basically we are seeing the same shit we've been seeing all year: bullshit media coverage posting Clinton's numbers down. Trump remains stuck at his ceiling it seems.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

19 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Third party support is overestimated. Beyond that, none of this is making Trump's path via the electoral college any more likely.

Basically we are seeing the same shit we've been seeing all year: bullshit media coverage posting Clinton's numbers down. Trump remains stuck at his ceiling it seems.

Great, now you jynxed it.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

24 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Third party support is overestimated. Beyond that, none of this is making Trump's path via the electoral college any more likely.

It's also important to remember that third party support tends to decrease as we get closer to Election Day.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 We all spin down here, Nestor.

 

Methinks we've found your avi.

[Fez]

15 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Third party support is overestimated. Beyond that, none of this is making Trump's path via the electoral college any more likely.

Basically we are seeing the same shit we've been seeing all year: bullshit media coverage posting Clinton's numbers down. Trump remains stuck at his ceiling it seems.

I'm sure its being overestimated some, a lot of those people won't end up voting, but things do seem different this cycle. For one, third party support has been trending UP since the convention, which never happens (except Perot in '92 when he re-entered the race); and second, we've never had had two major candidates this unpopular. 

If a lot of those people don't end up voting, Clinton's percentage margin will get better, but her raw vote total won't. And that's starting look too close for comfort in some of these states. On the other hand, this is where ground game comes into play, and she's got a good one and Trump doesn't have one. So that will help.

I agree that its media coverage that's affecting Clinton, but what's important is the result, which is that her numbers are sliding. Trump's haven't gotten better, so it should be easier for her to recovery at least some of them than it otherwise would be, especially if she has solid debate performances (or if Trump says something stupid/offensive enough that the media has to call him on it). But the point is, now isn't the time to get complacent. And I think she and her campaign did get complacent after how gaudy the numbers still were two weeks post-convention.

Earlier this year, there was a lot of talk about Clinton rallies with all the big Democratic names, and almost none of that has materialized. Biden has been doing his part, but that's about it. That needs to change. There needs to be a lot more attacks like her alt-right speech last week, and she needs to run more positive ads to boost her image again.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Methinks we've found your avi.

I'll have to give it a shot when I get home.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

How is it in dispute? Coulter said it was him doing a "general retard" and that was your position too, right? Or are you taking a different position and stating that he wasn't even doing that?

Well, I think I've stated my position pretty clearly, but I'll quote from myself below. 

3 hours ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

It might be the case that Trump's impression of someone who is flustered bears an uncomfortable resemblance to making fun of someone with a spastic condition. We're dealing with what is clearly a set of ambiguous physical displays. As an expression of being flustered, all Trump's doing is presenting a visual, physical manifestation of what it means to be flustered - ie: a physical manifestation of someone flailing around for a response. That's a pretty common understanding of how people visualize and physically dramatize emotional states. 

But of course, there's a huge difference between engaging in the intentional and deliberate mockery of someone's physical disability with engaging in a pantomime that inadvertently bears a resemblance to the former. The former is a pretty egregious faux pas, the latter much less so.