Trump's Address On The Mass Shootings
There's really no way to be more against them than this. (See video)
The left somehow still thinks that Trump is a closet white supremacist. But, then, as I've said, they largely live in a fantasy world.
It's possibly that he's said things that inadvertently encourage the crazy racist right; he's certainly sloppy and incautious and unpresidential. And an asshole. But even the hypothesis that he's a racist is implausible. But even that implausible hypothesis wasn't enough--he had to be a white supremacist (though that can just mean the same thing in the ever-changing jargon of the left). Now we seem to have moved into the "HE'S AN AVOWED WHITE SUPREMACIST" phase--which has also spawned the "HIS SUPPORTERS BY DEFINITION SUPPORT WHITE SUPREMACY" phase.
Anyway, again: you really can't condemn the shootings and shooters in stronger terms than he did here. In fact, it was, I have to say, maybe a little much in some way I have a hard time articulating. I mean, it's horrible and I'm mad about it--but I'm not sure I'm heartbroken and so forth. That's just the way most of us are with respect to tragedies at such a distance. Not complaining--just saying that there's no Earthly way to say that his statement was insufficiently critical, insufficiently anti-crazy, anti-racist, etc.
Trump's alleged racism is hypothetical, depending on a relatively few things he's said and done with lots of conjecture about his beliefs and attitudes required to pull off the inferences, and largely dependent on errors and lies about what he said (e.g. "All Mexicans are rapists"). And the accusations have been made by a political faction that throws accusations of racism at its political opponents all day, every day. His statements against racism have been clear and unequivocal. The implausible accusations are sustained largely by the contemporary dialectical dynamic: truth isn't the main aim of such accusations. The main aim is to signal that the speaker isn't racist--and, more generally, that the speaker is virtuous/"woke." Defending someone from an accusation of racism brings your own status into question. Leaping into the accusation pile-on is a way of signaling that you are--you hope--unimpeachable. Hence the hair-trigger desperation of so many such accusations. Hence the anyone-who-supports-Trump-is-Hitler phase. What that really means is: anyone who even defends Trump is Hitler. This is the left's general strategy of moralizing every issue--any disagreement with them makes you a racist. Hence disagreeing with them is never permissible. It's turned out to be a fairly effective way of pushing society relentlessly leftward. Toward destruction, as likely as not.
Again: Trump's bad; but the left needs him to be worse, so it constructs a straw Trump that is literally Hitler.
Finally: wow, that guy is really, really bad at delivering speeches.
The left somehow still thinks that Trump is a closet white supremacist. But, then, as I've said, they largely live in a fantasy world.
It's possibly that he's said things that inadvertently encourage the crazy racist right; he's certainly sloppy and incautious and unpresidential. And an asshole. But even the hypothesis that he's a racist is implausible. But even that implausible hypothesis wasn't enough--he had to be a white supremacist (though that can just mean the same thing in the ever-changing jargon of the left). Now we seem to have moved into the "HE'S AN AVOWED WHITE SUPREMACIST" phase--which has also spawned the "HIS SUPPORTERS BY DEFINITION SUPPORT WHITE SUPREMACY" phase.
Anyway, again: you really can't condemn the shootings and shooters in stronger terms than he did here. In fact, it was, I have to say, maybe a little much in some way I have a hard time articulating. I mean, it's horrible and I'm mad about it--but I'm not sure I'm heartbroken and so forth. That's just the way most of us are with respect to tragedies at such a distance. Not complaining--just saying that there's no Earthly way to say that his statement was insufficiently critical, insufficiently anti-crazy, anti-racist, etc.
Trump's alleged racism is hypothetical, depending on a relatively few things he's said and done with lots of conjecture about his beliefs and attitudes required to pull off the inferences, and largely dependent on errors and lies about what he said (e.g. "All Mexicans are rapists"). And the accusations have been made by a political faction that throws accusations of racism at its political opponents all day, every day. His statements against racism have been clear and unequivocal. The implausible accusations are sustained largely by the contemporary dialectical dynamic: truth isn't the main aim of such accusations. The main aim is to signal that the speaker isn't racist--and, more generally, that the speaker is virtuous/"woke." Defending someone from an accusation of racism brings your own status into question. Leaping into the accusation pile-on is a way of signaling that you are--you hope--unimpeachable. Hence the hair-trigger desperation of so many such accusations. Hence the anyone-who-supports-Trump-is-Hitler phase. What that really means is: anyone who even defends Trump is Hitler. This is the left's general strategy of moralizing every issue--any disagreement with them makes you a racist. Hence disagreeing with them is never permissible. It's turned out to be a fairly effective way of pushing society relentlessly leftward. Toward destruction, as likely as not.
Again: Trump's bad; but the left needs him to be worse, so it constructs a straw Trump that is literally Hitler.
Finally: wow, that guy is really, really bad at delivering speeches.
posted by Winston Smith at
9:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home