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:

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.

1. I think we just disagree on this one. To me, the president of the united states has much more reach and influence than any of the people listed on the left so I think it's reasonable to try and tackle that first. Getting Trump to stop using such rhetoric is the single most impactful thing one can do if you want to curb negative rhetoric. 

3. As someone who would prefer no negative rhetoric on either side, I would like to curb it in the most effective way. So rather than try to curb things from the general nebulous mob of "the left" I think it is much more useful, practical, and important to focus on the single most powerful person in the world and his rhetoric. After that I'll try to work on the comedians and talk show hosts. 

1. I think influence and impact of words is much more nuanced than “whodunit” or more accurately “whosaidit”. We take into consideration things like credibility and likability of speaker, power of words, method and passion of delivery, social relevance, relatability of ideas towards target audience, oratorial skill, etc. It doesn’t matter if the words come from the God Emperor of Man, if he says “lol u shud tackle the noob”, it won’t have the same impact as an empassioned speech delivered by a master orator directly to his bread-and-butter target audience. At the end of the day, it is the constant repetition by the media, their spin and exaggeration of the relevance of such words is what really gives Trump’s careless words impact. Impact it does not deserve.

Again, everyone might be looking at the wrong parties here on who is really is at fault regarding the spread of all the negative rhetoric. Maybe instead of asking Trump to STFU, maybe we should stop listgening to him and just let him shout into the wind? Better yet, maybe it is time to switch off the TV and stop reading biased (left or right) news?

3. I disagree. Rhetoric is just rhetoric. It is up to us how we decide to act on it. If you really want to have an impact, extend your hand to other side and offer to talk things out (like we are doing right now). I think it would be amazing how the same we are the second we don’t allow media to divide us by telling us what and how to think. Let’s work on ourselves and then work on changing others.

Last edited by DrDoomz - on 28 October 2018