Demagoguery, Bad Faith and Intellectual Dishonesty in US Politics

[horncyclist 1391]

Case in point:

 

One of many articles discussing this latest example: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/ilhan-omar/586993/ To try to pinpoint what I'm talking about, it's knowingly taking someone's statements out of context to engage in a bad-faith political attack fueled by demagoguery and fear. 

My question is to what extent is this new or heightened in the error of Trump? Is it just more effective today in the era of social media and fake news to manipulate people? How do we respond to it? Is there room for a return to honesty or is this the new normal? Should the left just start engaging in the same fake news and political manipulation like it experimented with in support of Doug Jones in Alabama? 

At risk of both-sidesism, the article above opens by noting the left's own version, with attacks fueled by political correctness and virtue signaling: "When the ideological left engages in what is variously denigrated as “political correctness,” virtue-signaling, performative wokeness, or “social-justice warrior” cry-bullying, many on the right find it easy to spot the flaws in those modes of discourse. " I do not think these are in anyway morally equivalent but each are disruptive to the political discourse. 

[bad_teammate 13218]

Before I even clicked, I saw the thread title and the poster and thought, "He's going to compare the left and Bernie Bros to Trump".

Nailed it, as usual.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

The thing is, why would you describe that event as "some people did something" rather than say what actually happened ?  Why ?  What motivation would one have to not say Radical Islamic terrorists murdered 3,500 people in a suicide attack. 

[horncyclist 1391]

Before I even clicked, I saw the thread title and the poster and thought, "He's going to compare the left and Bernie Bros to Trump".
Nailed it, as usual.

Geez man, we're on the same side. I threw that in there cause the article does it. They are nowhere close. Trumpism and its lies are the biggest threat to our country. My top two issues are (1) structural political reform and (2) taking a stand for morality and our values. You really are bad teammate.

[David Dennison 18925]

18 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The thing is, why would you describe that event as "some people did something" rather than say what actually happened ?  Why ?  What motivation would one have to not say Radical Islamic terrorists murdered 3,500 people in a suicide attack. 

Must be that dual loyalty thing.

[horncyclist 1391]

The thing is, why would you describe that event as "some people did something" rather than say what actually happened ?  Why ?  What motivation would one have to not say Radical Islamic terrorists murdered 3,500 people in a suicide attack. 

Because the point of her speech was persecution of a whole diverse class of people because of the actions of an unprepresentative few whose actions went against the tenants of Islam--thry killed other Muslims even. And didn't GWB describe the hijackers as the "folks who knocked these buildings down?" Nothing she said deserved the attacks she is receiving. It is dishonest and dangerous.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Must be that dual loyalty thing.

 That's your serious response ?

[David Dennison 18925]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

 That's your serious response ?

Was yours?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, horncyclist said:

21 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The thing is, why would you describe that event as "some people did something" rather than say what actually happened ?  Why ?  What motivation would one have to not say Radical Islamic terrorists murdered 3,500 people in a suicide attack. 

Because the point of her speech was persecution of a whole diverse class of people because of the actions of an unprepresentative few whose actions went against the tenants of Islam--thry killed other Muslims even. And didn't GWB describe the hijackers as the "folks who knocked these buildings down?" Nothing she said deserved the attacks she is receiving. It is dishonest and dangerous.

I'll agree that death threats are always out of bounds. Criticism for her choice of words is not however.  She chose those words very carefully, it wasn't an off the cuff remark.

[David Dennison 18925]

3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'll agree that death threats are always out of bounds. Criticism for her choice of words is not however.  She chose those words very carefully, it wasn't an off the cuff remark.

What motivation would she have to not say radical Islamic terrorists murdered 3,500 people in a suicide attack?

[horncyclist 1391]

I'll agree that death threats are always out of bounds. Criticism for her choice of words is not however.  She chose those words very carefully, it wasn't an off the cuff remark.

Your response is exactly what I'm talking about Her words weren't chosen carefully. It was a passing reference in a long speech that was about something else. It's being used by Trump and others, knowing that it's out of context along with her in her head covering with the contrasting images of 9/11. They are using an innocent statement to condemn a whole people who are Americans equal to you and me. And against a sitting US Congresswoman. And inciting violence. People will die because of it.

So are you being misleading intentionally or do you really believe what youre saying.Trump is so deluded who knows what he's thinking. But Ted Cruz knows exactly what he's doing and is a worthless piece of shit.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, horncyclist said:

Your response is exactly what I'm talking about Her words weren't chosen carefully. It was a passing reference in a long speech that was about something else. It's being used by Trump and others, knowing that it's out of context along with her in her head covering with the contrasting images of 9/11. They are using an innocent statement to condemn a whole people who are Americans equal to you and me. And against a sitting US Congresswoman. And inciting violence. People will die because of it.

So are you being misleading intentionally or do you really believe what youre saying.Trump is so deluded who knows what he's thinking. But Ted Cruz knows exactly what he's doing and is a worthless piece of shit.

 

Speeches are scripted before they're given, but I'm sure you knew that.

[horncyclist 1391]

Speeches are scripted before they're given, but I'm sure you knew that.

Not all speeches and people don't always stick to the script. Who knows. Even if she did choose those words, they are not bad. How is it any different than GWB calling the terrorists "folks"?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, horncyclist said:

Not all speeches and people don't always stick to the script. Who knows. Even if she did choose those words, they are not bad. How is it any different than GWB calling the terrorists "folks"?
 

Again, comparing GWB's comments that were more than likely made off the cuff (which he was known to do frequently) to a known prepared speech is jumping to conclusions.  Maybe she did make the on the spur of the moment, maybe she didn't.  

 

[elfenix 34326]

Again, comparing GWB's comments that were more than likely made off the cuff (which he was known to do frequently) to a known prepared speech is jumping to conclusions.  Maybe she did make the on the spur of the moment, maybe she didn't.  
 

Says the person jumping to conclusions

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, elfenix said:

11 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Again, comparing GWB's comments that were more than likely made off the cuff (which he was known to do frequently) to a known prepared speech is jumping to conclusions.  Maybe she did make the on the spur of the moment, maybe she didn't.  
 

Says the person jumping to conclusions

Jumping to conclusions ?  Asking why someone would use that phrase in a prepared speech is jumping to conclusions ?  Positing a fact that's pretty widely acknowledged about GWB is jumping to conclusions ?

Gotcha....

[horncyclist 1391]

26 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Again, comparing GWB's comments that were more than likely made off the cuff (which he was known to do frequently) to a known prepared speech is jumping to conclusions.  Maybe she did make the on the spur of the moment, maybe she didn't.  

 

I think you should ask yourself why you give GWB the benefit of the doubt and not Ilhan Omar. 

Edited April 14, 2019 by horncyclist

[Mole 4333]

 

[wildcat09 29355]

I thought this was going to be about Anastasis and I am disappoint. However, OB doing his best to make OP’s point is a nice consolation.

[horncyclist 1391]

I posted the wrong Vulvarine tweet in my original post. Meant to post this one, with another out of context clip of Congresswoman Omar. Honestly, just looking at the clip, I can't understand the point she's trying to make or why Ted Cruz wants me to be outraged about it. I think she's talking about how names like Al Qaeda and Hezbollah-- and how they're said--are used for fearmongering but there's no way to figure it out from the clip. I think James Woods and Ted Cruz might be trying to suggest those names are revered in a way "America" is not? No clue. 

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

24 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

I think you should ask yourself why you give GWB the benefit of the doubt and not Ilhan Omar. 

When did GWB makes those remarks ?  During the hours and days before we knew who was actually responsible ?  Or after it was known who committed the act ?

[horncyclist 1391]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

When did GWB makes those remarks ?  During the hours and days before we knew who was actually responsible ?  Or after it was known who committed the act ?

When he said that we all knew the people were terrible, evil people, not "folks." Tough I'm not sure if we knew they were muslim yet, though, so maybe you're right, "folks" is correct there, innocent until proven guilty and all.

You never answered my question: Do you honestly believe what you're saying or are you doing it to score political points? 

[bad_teammate 13218]

1 hour ago, horncyclist said:

I threw that in there cause the article does it.

It's literally the only thing you quoted from the article.

- You cut out the next sentence in which the author shows he's talking about it because it reveal's the right's hypocrisy.

- You add the criticism that left protests are "disruptive to the political discourse", which is complete bullshit.

You should check your reflexive need to punch left to prove your reasonableness. That's bad faith demagoguery of its own kind.

[horncyclist 1391]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It's literally the only thing you quoted from the article.

- You cut out the next sentence in which the author shows he's talking about it because it reveal's the right's hypocrisy.

- You add the criticism that left protests are "disruptive to the political discourse", which is complete bullshit.

You should check your reflexive need to punch left to prove your reasonableness. That's bad faith demagoguery of its own kind.

Dude I'm a public servant  making one quarter what I could in the private sector who supports major tax overhauls to tax the rich and corporations more, vigorous defense of civil liberties, and universal healthcare. I am the left. And the deep state to boot. I was just trying to prompt a discussion. And yes, I think political correctness can disrupt political discourse. Do you not?

You, along with OB, are proving my point, which is frightening. 

edit to add: I didn't quote the parts of the article about Trump's distortions because they should be so fucking obvious. 

 

Edited April 14, 2019 by horncyclist

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, horncyclist said:

When he said that we all knew the people were terrible, evil people, not "folks." Tough I'm not sure if we knew they were muslim yet, though, so maybe you're right, "folks" is correct there, innocent until proven guilty and all.

You never answered my question: Do you honestly believe what you're saying or are you doing it to score political points? 

 His comment seems to have been made before we knew who was responsible for the act. So there's nothing bizarre about it.  Making a specific non reference to who committed the act in a prepared speech to an audience is not even the same example.

What are you asking me about scoring political points ?  What do I have to gain by scoring political points, and how does that benefit me ?

[bad_teammate 13218]

8 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

And yes, I think political correctness can disrupt political discourse. Do you not?

I would be interested to know what you mean by "political correctness" in this context. Can't answer until I know that.

Quote

You, along with OB, are proving my point, which is frightening. 

You should be frightened of your inability to tell the difference.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

I would be interested to know what you mean by "political correctness" in this context. Can't answer until I know that.

You should be frightened of your inability to tell the difference.

You frighten me everyday with your posts that scream cognitive disconnect from reality.

[bad_teammate 13218]

*white supremacists advocate for an all-white ethnostate while Muslims and minorities are murdered en masse*

*college kids want to be called "them" instead of "he/she" in protests where no one is hurt or even threatened*

Liberal: "Hmmm, if you think about it, one is just a version of the other."

[horncyclist 1391]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I would be interested to know what you mean by "political correctness" in this context. Can't answer until I know that.

You should be frightened of your inability to tell the difference.

I didn't say there's not a difference between the two of you. I said you're both proving my point, which is it's become acceptable  to unapologeticly engage in bad-faith, intellectual dishonest tactics in political discussion. You immediately distorted my post to undermine the discussion I was trying to start. Then accused me of not being left enough.

[bad_teammate 13218]

6 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

You immediately distorted my post to undermine the discussion I was trying to start.

I pointed out the bad faith both in the overall premise and in your presentation of the premise. Your quoted inclusion of someone else's "both sides!" bullshit is just as active a choice as if you had written it yourself.

Again, what is "political correctness"? 

I have a feeling you're actually pretty regressive about "left" protest if you buy into the narrative that "political correctness" is "disruptive to discourse", so I am genuinely interested in your answer to that question.

If you're adopting the language of the Intellectual Dark Web, it raises suspicions that your choosing to quote the "BOTH SIDES!" portion of the article wasn't accidental and was, in fact, an attempt to advance an ideology you're pretending not to have.

[elfenix 34326]

14 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

You frighten me everyday with your posts that scream cognitive disconnect from reality.

[David Dennison 18925]

28 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

You frighten me everyday with your posts that scream cognitive disconnect from reality.

What motivation would Omar have to not say radical Islamic terrorists murdered 3,500 people in a suicide attack?

[horncyclist 1391]

I'm not intentionally trying to avoid the question on political correctness. I'm just trying to think of the best example, because I know whatever I say you're going to tear it apart and attack me for it. Political correctness is too narrow. I support the recent social advances the left has pushed, LGBTQ equality, racial and gender inequality, metoo, etc, taking people to task on opposing those goals is fine. Generally what I'm getting at is knowingly and falsely attributing malevolent intentions to someone's words without considering their intention and engaging with them on a substantive level. 

This article attacking Obama as a hypocrit for encouraging young black men to not put too much value in material things and ostentatious consumption. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/23/opinion/my-brothers-keeper-obama.html. 

I'll try to come up with more and better examples. Again, I didn't want this thread to be about that. I want it to be about the mainstreaming of overt racism, islamophobia, etc., as a political tactic, and and attacking others in bad-faith to further those tactics. 

[bad_teammate 13218]

39 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

Generally what I'm getting at is knowingly and falsely attributing malevolent intentions to someone's words without considering their intention and engaging with them on a substantive level. 

This article attacking Obama as a hypocrit for encouraging young black men to not put too much value in material things and ostentatious consumption. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/23/opinion/my-brothers-keeper-obama.html. 

Derecka Purnell, a Harvard-educated lawyer and civil rights activist, is both considering Obama's intentions and critiquing his words on a substantive level. I read the piece and she attributed no malevolent intentions. She's "disappointed".

The substance of Obama's statement is meritless pop-psychology. He makes the argument that ostentatious displays of wealth and sexuality indicate a lack of confidence in wealth and sexuality. That's not based on any real understand of psychology and sociology. It's him reheating some Bill Cosby schtick to please a crowd. (I could go on about how dumb Obama's take is, but that's not really the point.)

The fact that you're having a hard time coming up with examples of "political correctness" being "disruptive to discourse" should give you some pause about the strength of the argument and make you reticent to parrot those arguments. You should interrogate them before promoting them.