Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
August1991

Donald Trump & Justin Trudeau

Recommended Posts

In this case it is fomenting hatred because it is deliberately misrepresenting the position of their political opponents.

OMG. Call the Twitter police. You're fomenting hatred now too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justin Trudeau is literally advocating for genocide of conservatives!

Why not? After all cultural genocide is a thing now. Why is calling for end of conservative culture socially acceptable but calling for the assimilation of aboriginal cultures beyond the pale?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It fits the definition of the words 'fomenting hatred' because it encourages listeners to see another group as evil. The only reason you object is you lack the objectivity to recognize the behaviors when they are used to support causes that you believe in.

Really? So if person A says, for example, "all people from this country are murderers, rapists and drug smugglers" and person B responds with "That's racist" then they are both equally fomenting hatred?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? So if person A says, for example, "all people from this country are murderers, rapists and drug smugglers" and person B responds with "That's racist" then they are both equally fomenting hatred?

Yes, as invoking the "racist" label is not only an imprecise retort (nationals can be of any "race"), but the intention is to bring pressure (hatred) from the larger sphere of political correctness worshipers with that dog whistle word.

However, both forms of speech are protected in the United States (i.e. Trump).

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? So if person A says, for example, "all people from this country are murderers, rapists and drug smugglers" and person B responds with "That's racist" then they are both equally fomenting hatred?

Trump did not say that which makes your misrepresentation an attempt to foment hatred of Trump.

What Trump said is:

The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems.

When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists.

And some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we're getting. And it only makes common sense. They're sending us not the right people.

Now one can criticize this statement but it is NOT a blanket condemnation of all Mexicans. It is only complaint about the people who immigrate illegally. You can point out that it is not true. You can say Trump is fomenting hatred of illegal immigrants. But it is not racist.

It is certainly not worse than your attempt to foment hatred of Trump.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? So if person A says, for example, "all people from this country are murderers, rapists and drug smugglers" and person B responds with "That's racist" then they are both equally fomenting hatred?

No, it's more like for example when Katherine Wynne talks about Trudeau's promise to bring in refugees and says "What we can't give in to is allowing security to mask racism. That's the danger, and that somehow talking about security allows us to tap into that racist vein, when that isn't who we are"

See this is a generalization that basically says, if you have concerns with refugees coming into Canada in large numbers, you're really a racist trying to mask it with the facade of security. It's quite a caustic way of dealing with an opposing opinion, and is an implied accusation that is far removed from being merely a mild criticism or difference of opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of all three responses not a one of you actually answered my question, so I'll rephrase with what I hope is a simpler example.

If I said: "Republicans can't think their way out of a wet paper bag" and Cybercoma chastised me for being nasty and narrow-minded, those are both examples of equally fomenting hate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I said: "Republicans can't think their way out of a wet paper bag" and Cybercoma chastised me for being nasty and narrow-minded, those are both examples of equally fomenting hate?

Cybercoma is directing a comment to you so it is a fair response. If Cybercoma went out and started telling everyone else that you are nasty and narrow minded then Cybercoma is fomenting hatred of you. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of all three responses not a one of you actually answered my question, so I'll rephrase with what I hope is a simpler example.

If I said: "Republicans can't think their way out of a wet paper bag" and Cybercoma chastised me for being nasty and narrow-minded, those are both examples of equally fomenting hate?

No, we answered your question directly, but apparently not to your liking.

Neither of the new and improved examples "foment hate".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I clearly noted as a difference between Trump and Trudeau is that Trudeau has a sense of fair play, and Trump does not.

Trudeau scolded his own supporters for heckling a reporter who was asking tough questions about Dan Gagnier quitting. Trudeau said: "Hey! We have respect for journalists in this country, they ask tough questions and they're supposed to. OK?"

Contrast this with the multitude of times that Trump showed complete disrespect for others, perhaps at his worst when he mocked the disabled reporter from the New York Times.

If you want to be a leader, you have to show leadership. When is Trump going to start?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do I have to explain to you that I am not calling you a racist if I say you are using similar rhetoric to rhetoric that in the past has led to racism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to be a leader, you have to show leadership. When is Trump going to start?

When he "fires" many federal government directors and managers ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cybercoma is directing a comment to you so it is a fair response. If Cybercoma went out and started telling everyone else that you are nasty and narrow minded then Cybercoma is fomenting hatred of you.

Good answer, TimG, and I think it helps me understand where you are coming from.

All political leaders criticize each other, publicly. So are Clinton and Sanders fomenting hate for each other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All political leaders criticize each other, publicly. So are Clinton and Sanders fomenting hate for each other?

Depends on the language used. As I said, it is possible to disagree without fomenting hatred. i.e. saying you should not vote for X because their policies are bad is fine. Saying you should not vote for X because they are bad/evil person is fomenting hatred.

The forum has rules about attacking the ideas not the person which is similar but it is more complicated than that because one can attack the ideas in ways that imply the people who believe in such ideas are bad/evil which would be fomenting hatred.

If one misrepresents what someone has said in order to make the person sound bad/evil then you are definitely fomenting hatred.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on the language used. As I said, it is possible to disagree without fomenting hatred. i.e. saying you should not vote for X because their policies are bad is fine. Saying you should not vote for X because they are bad/evil person is fomenting hatred.

The forum has rules about attacking the ideas not the person which is similar but it is more complicated than that because one can attack the ideas in ways that imply the people who believe in such ideas are bad/evil which would be fomenting hatred.

If one misrepresents what someone has said in order to make the person sound bad/evil then you are definitely fomenting hatred.

Your arguments get weaker by the post. No thinking person could fail to distinguish Trump's bombast as not fomenting hatred. I'd give up were I you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on the language used. As I said, it is possible to disagree without fomenting hatred. i.e. saying you should not vote for X because their policies are bad is fine. Saying you should not vote for X because they are bad/evil person is fomenting hatred.The forum has rules about attacking the ideas not the person which is similar but it is more complicated than that because one can attack the ideas in ways that imply the people who believe in such ideas are bad/evil which would be fomenting hatred.If one misrepresents what someone has said in order to make the person sound bad/evil then you are definitely fomenting hatred.

So then making the distinction that the rhetoric could lead to racism is not calling the person racist. Your misrepresentation of Justin's words fall perfectly under this definition. Way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then making the distinction that the rhetoric could lead to racism is not calling the person racist. Your misrepresentation of Justin's words fall perfectly under this definition. Way to go.

Justin misrepresented the conservative position and compared it to racist acts in the past. You can quibble that he did not directly say that conservative were racist but the misrepresentation was real and that makes it fomenting hatred by implying that conservatives are racists. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald Trump is not "fomenting hatred"...he is fomenting votes. Seems to be working.

Perhaps between the dolts who can't seem to appreciate the difference. I know someone who owns property in Badeck, and she would vote for Trump if she could. Think of the boost in property values if he gets in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justin misrepresented the conservative position and compared it to racist acts in the past. You can quibble that he did not directly say that conservative were racist but the misrepresentation was real and that makes it fomenting hatred by implying that conservatives are racists.

You're misrepresenting again. He compared Harper's rhetoric to rhetoric in the past that led to racism. That isn't calling anyone a racist by any reading of that sentence. I can smell the hatred fomenting from your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're misrepresenting again. He compared Harper's rhetoric to rhetoric in the past that led to racism. That isn't calling anyone a racist by any reading of that sentence. I can smell the hatred fomenting from your post.

Fine, I misrepresented Trudeau by saying he called his opponents racists. I should have said he said they are similar to racists. Happy now? Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine, I misrepresented Trudeau by saying he called his opponents racists. I should have said he said they are similar to racists. Happy now?

no, because he didn't say that either. Your attempts at paraphrasing are so poor they just create more and more hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on the language used. As I said, it is possible to disagree without fomenting hatred. i.e. saying you should not vote for X because their policies are bad is fine. Saying you should not vote for X because they are bad/evil person is fomenting hatred.

The forum has rules about attacking the ideas not the person which is similar but it is more complicated than that because one can attack the ideas in ways that imply the people who believe in such ideas are bad/evil which would be fomenting hatred.

If one misrepresents what someone has said in order to make the person sound bad/evil then you are definitely fomenting hatred.

While your argument that people should attack policy, and not other people, has merit, you seem to want to use this to also avoid the fact that there are degrees of behavior, and to suggest that people should ignore what's happening because mentioning it is just as bad. Trump actively encourages his supporters to attack protesters, both in his actions and in his rhetoric - his security removes protesters, while Trump insults them on the way out; Trump expresses his desire to 'punch guys like that' in the face, and wishing for the good old days when those kind of people were taken out on a stretcher; he rewards his supporters who punch people by inviting them up on the stage and offering to pay their legal bills. How is that any kind of "policy", and not 'fomenting hatred' as well as violence? How is accurately commenting on what he is doing as equally "fomenting hatred"?

I thought conservative-types (which I am assuming you are) didn't like political correctness, and yet here you seem to be using it as a way to bolster your argument: Don't say the truth, because that makes you the same as the person you are accusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...