By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
DrDoomz on 28 October 2018
Edit Thread
Torillian said:
DrDoomz said:

His ability to make policy decisions shouldn’t matter all that much. It doesn’t make his words that much more powerful or influential after all. Or at least with me (and I would assume the general random normal person). Someone going “hey go punch that guy” doesn’t make me want to punch someone more just because he is suddenly President. I mean not unless he says in it an Independence Day-esque speech with music playing in the background (and even then just maybe). Are you talking about higher reach, maybe? Idunno, explain it to me.

It would maybe make his intentions more clear. And that should perhaps worry you if your policies are something you disagree with.

Well it is the job of entertainers to incite an emotional response with their target audience. I would argue that someone like Madonna could get a random crazy just as riled up (or even more) than someone like Trump given equal reach/coverage as they are far better at it.

1. You don't think that the president's words have more impact and authority behind them than Madonna's? I would argue that it's much easier to feel justified in something when someone from a position of authority says it rather than someone whose music you like. 

2. I also notice that you said "given equal reach/coverage" but that's not the case s it? The president has far more reach and coverage as he should in most cases. 

3. All of this is assuming we're limiting the discussion solely to one's ability to "rile up a crazy person". Looking at the questions more holistically though, I think you cannot underestimate the importance of someone being able to put their divisive thoughts into practice through policy. 

1. I don’t see how you’d feel that. Being justified to do what? How is feeling slightly more justified make them much more likely act a certain way? How is that better than being able to incite powerful emotional responses? I mean how about talk show commentators justifying certain actions thru expert oration? Wouldn’t that have a stronger impact than the words of an oratorially-inept politician?

2. Depends. The media controls reach. And they can even control the message. They can twist Trump’s words if they choose to do so. Or enhance it for maximum damage. Maybe we’re both looking at the wrong party here when it comes to damage caused by negative rhetoric?

3. I’m not underestimating, though. My question was how “But Trump is President” has become some kind of catch-all response when the rhetoric from the left is brought up as I feel that, to be logically consistent and intellectually honest, we need to condemn both to condemn one. I, personally, are in the camp of “I don’t really care” as I am strongly for personal responsibility but I am actually just curious on how those who use that logic have it works out in their mind.