Just when you think the media cannot sink any lower

[loveofourlord]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/10/29/pr_shadow_senator_zoraida_bux_endorses_trump_watch_out_for_emotional_manipulation_we_need_trump.html

Puerto Rico Shadow Senator Zoraida Buxó: Don't Be Distracted By Emotional Manipulation And Propaganda, We Need Trump​

Puerto Ricans in must-win state say Trump rally joke won’t be forgotten

Puerto Ricans form a large portion of the Latino vote in Pennsylvania. Many are angry at a comedian's joke about the island.

www.bbc.com

 

[BPPLEE]

Puerto Ricans in must-win state say Trump rally joke won’t be forgotten

Puerto Ricans form a large portion of the Latino vote in Pennsylvania. Many are angry at a comedian's joke about the island.

www.bbc.com

Yeah, people who weren’t going to vote for him anyway

 

[loveofourlord]

Yeah, people who weren’t going to vote for him anyway

I bet you some of them were.

 

[MrMoe]

Did you think the 1939 Nazi rally in NYC was all a bunch of foreigners? Those were ordinary American citizens as well.

Who where there for completely different reasons. Jews, black people and gay people were all welcome at the Trump rally. These groups were not welcome by the Nazis.

I would hope people are dividing themselves away from this hateful movement. I’m not trying to welcome this garbage into my country even though it’s already here.

Trump supporters at a Trump rally are a "hateful movement"? You are engaging in the divisive rhetoric you claim to have an issue with.

 

[Belk]

Typical liberals

So their opinion does not count? Only conservative opinions are worth listening to in their area of expertise?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Trump supporters at a Trump rally are a "hateful movement"? You are engaging in the divisive rhetoric you claim to have an issue with.

It’s supposed to be divisive. I have no interest in uniting with these people and neither do any of them.

 

[BPPLEE]

So their opinion does not count? Only conservative opinions are worth listening to in their area of expertise?

No, I'm suggesting that they are biased. You could make the same case about many politicians if you set out to do so.

 

[KCfromNC]

Typical liberals

People educated in a field drawing conclusions from their vast experience in that subject? Sounds about right.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't know, and I'm not sure what the relevance of those things would be. This is specifically about immigration and for me this line of discussion is about how people manipulate the term "legally" to make some group of current immigrants look differently (morally, it would seem) relative to earlier groups. Did my ancestors come here legally in 1846, 1848, 1852, 1855, and 1871? I don't know. Probably. There doesn't seem to have been any significant immigration laws *to* violate. I'm not really interested in this example, nor have I spent any time looking it over.

Parallels for how we treat other laws (that have gone from lax to strict) are relevant. As that can cause people to think about how we handle laws and enforcement as a general rule, rather than looking through it myopically for a single hot-button issue for political convenience.

Despite you not being interested in the driver's license example, there are similarities.

People would certainly assign a level of "virtue" to the idea of playing by the rules and insisting "people should have to take a drivers exam and get licensed if they want to participate in the privilege of driving on public roads"

A defense of "Get off your moral high horse and quit acting like you're so great, your ancestors drove around in the Midwest all the time without a license back in the 1930's during a time when there weren't any driver's licenses laws to violate, so see, you're not any better than the person who's driving without a license" would be borderline laughable.

And we certainly wouldn't being viewing someone breaking the modern laws in a "softer" light based on historical enforcement levels.

If anything, quite the opposite.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

People educated in a field drawing conclusions from their vast experience in that subject? Sounds about right.

Sociology is a "soft science", which means people can "shop for experts" who agree with them pretty easily.

Much like economics...it's not hard for people to find a PhD that agrees with the thing they already wanted to believe.

In the case of what was being discussed above, you can find people with PhD's in history on either side of the 'Is Trump like Hitler' debate.


Finding a History professor at Berkeley saying "Trump is Hitler 2.0" is about as "surprising" as finding an Economics professor at Brigham Young touting unrestrained supply-side economic policy.


Or to put it more succinctly, shopping around for the opinions of a few Humanities PhDs from notoriously ideologically-biased institutions isn't a compelling case, and shouldn't be given the same authority as, say, a world leading cardiologist presenting information about the cardiovascular system.

 

[Belk]

No, I'm suggesting that they are biased. You could make the same case about many politicians if you set out to do so.

Every human being is biased. Unless you are claiming that their bias somehow interferes with their expertise I fail to see how that is relevant?

 

[KCfromNC]

Sociology is a "soft science", which means people can "shop for experts" who agree with them pretty easily.

Much like economics...it's not hard for people to find a PhD that agrees with the thing they already wanted to believe.

In the case of what was being discussed above, you can find people with PhD's in history on either side of the 'Is Trump like Hitler' debate.

Interesting assertions. Perhaps we could look to see if there's any sort of consensus forming among the people you mentioned?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Parallels for how we treat other laws (that have gone from lax to strict) are relevant.

That's not the point of my example, so no, they aren't relevant.

As that can cause people to think about how we handle laws and enforcement as a general rule, rather than looking through it myopically for a single hot-button issue for political convenience.

Despite you not being interested in the driver's license example, there are similarities.

I don't know what example you speak of, but I haven't been finishing the reading of your posts when you start your divergence from the point.

People would certainly assign a level of "virtue" to the idea of playing by the rules and insisting "people should have to take a drivers exam and get licensed if they want to participate in the privilege of driving on public roads"

A defense of "Get off your moral high horse and quit acting like you're so great, your ancestors drove around in the Midwest all the time without a license back in the 1930's during a time when there weren't any driver's licenses laws to violate, so see, you're not any better than the person who's driving without a license" would be borderline laughable.

And we certainly wouldn't being viewing someone breaking the modern laws in a "softer" light based on historical enforcement levels.

If anything, quite the opposite.

 

[Diamond72]

Comparing a rally filled with ordinary American citizens of all races to a Nazi rally IS divisive rhetoric.

Is there an answer to the riddle of how to tell an ordinary citizen from a Nazi? Planned Partenthood is basicly Nazi because it is based on ethnic purity. They want to eliminate all the non white babies out there.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, did have connections to the eugenics movement, which has led to significant controvers. Her views and actions were rooted in the belief that birth control could help improve the genetic quality of the population. This included targeting minority communities with birth control programs, which has been criticized as promoting racial discrimination.

It is not working, we are rapidly becoming one third black, one third white, one third Latino and 3% Asian.

 

[BPPLEE]

Every human being is biased. Unless you are claiming that their bias somehow interferes with their expertise I fail to see how that is relevant?

Trump drinks water during his speeches. Who else did that?
Hitler

 

[rambot]

Yeah, people who weren’t going to vote for him anyway

How do you know that?

 

[Belk]

Trump drinks water during his speeches. Who else did that?
Hitler

<Roll eyes> You have fun with that.

 

[rambot]

Typical liberals

Is that an air of disdain here? Like being a history profession is inherently dismissable because apparently they are all liberals (which is simply demonstrably not true).

 

[DaisyDay]

Yeah, people who weren’t going to vote for him anyway

Or, people who weren't going to vote now are going to vote against him.

 

[rambot]

Who where there for completely different reasons. Jews, black people and gay people were all welcome at the Trump rally. These groups were not welcome by the Nazis.

Welcome at the rall

Trump drinks water during his speeches. Who else did that?
Hitler

He uses two hands though so that's different.
Good point.

Maybe Hitler and Trump don't have similar views on how to maintain and wield power.