The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Fear mongering Options
jacobusmaximus
Posted: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 2:38:33 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 11,318
Neurons: 402,001
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
I wonder if there is "something in it" for Trump - throwing in his lot with Israel. It is said that at a certain point in World War One both sides were almost bankrupt. Without lots of money the War would drag on for ever, and the only people who had lots of money were the Jews. Both sides wooed the Jews for the money to win the War, and Britain won the prize by the Balfour Declaration. Is this a Trump Declaration? Could he be trying to win International Jewish support for his extreme policies?

I remember, therefore I am.
progpen
Posted: Thursday, December 14, 2017 6:51:20 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,737
Neurons: 262,046
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
jacobusmaximus wrote:
I wonder if there is "something in it" for Trump - throwing in his lot with Israel. It is said that at a certain point in World War One both sides were almost bankrupt. Without lots of money the War would drag on for ever, and the only people who had lots of money were the Jews. Both sides wooed the Jews for the money to win the War, and Britain won the prize by the Balfour Declaration. Is this a Trump Declaration? Could he be trying to win International Jewish support for his extreme policies?


The US had been in a constant state of trying not to take sides on the Israeli-Palestinian peace in order to be better situated to moderate those talks and possibly take credit for any peace that would come of it. But Israel has been a major arms customer and has been an equal partner with the US on missile defense, next generation fighter aircraft design, military and paramilitary weapons design, private security technology and cyber security. Also, the NSA has relied heavily on Israel for its spy technology, to the point of looking the other way regarding the fact that much of Israel's spy technology has come from Russian immigrants.

With all that in mind, the current administration has decided that it is easier to embrace the defense technology relationship and set aside the peace talk moderation. There's more money in war.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, December 14, 2017 2:17:09 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,011
Neurons: 48,318
I haven’t had an opportunity to visit these pages for several days, but was confident that the fear mongering would no doubt continue. I see I was right in that assessment.

Hope says that the definition is: “spreading fear by using incorrect information to predict a disaster”.

Well, no. The dictionary says it is: “...the deliberate use of fear based tactics including exaggeration and usually repetition to influence the public in order to achieve a desired outcome. It is a tactic used to scare or put fear into those viewing a campaign/advertisement and influence the outcome based on fear. [Emphasis mine]

One can easily see how will, progpen and Hope, and their likeminded compatriots, are using this tactic by reading this article from The Intercept, which lays out in detail the same efforts of our so-called "News media" on the political Left here in the US. Their fear mongering has been exposed:

The U.S. Media Suffered Its Most Humiliating Debacle in Ages



A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
progpen
Posted: Thursday, December 14, 2017 2:21:37 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,737
Neurons: 262,046
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
philips daughter wrote:
What we need is a democratic political solution. We should be a nation of law. The purpose of law is this, to protect the weak from the strong. All the talk of GOP or Dems is so tribal. The two parties are collectively the problem. We should form a new party from the conservative Dems and the liberal GOP. I think that is the new silent majority. We need to find a voice. Bernie Sanders failed because he trusted the Democrats. What a mistake.


We are a nation of laws. We have laws in place as well as regulations for protecting consumers and taxpayers, but in many cases the public entities that should be enforcing these laws and regulations have been underfunded to the point that they are not able to enforce the existing laws and regulations.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Romany
Posted: Thursday, December 14, 2017 3:33:00 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,063
Neurons: 43,363
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

But I think that what the rest of the world is seeing is a Capitalist hegemony controlling America and permeating their politics, education, industry - which makes a total nonsense of democracy. Or at least of the concept of "democracy" which is held globally.

So there is a feeling of having been misled, which has permeated people everywhere. Obviously, the citizens of countries the USA has invaded in order to bring them "democracy" have felt more and more enabled to vocalise the feelings they have held for decades. But those countries to whom the terms "capitalist hegemony" and "democracy" are opposite poles include all the other developed nations.

Perhaps, once this embarrassing debacle has drawn to its messy and inevitable conclusion - whatever its duration - it might be a good time to think about new laws? Or at least for people to look outside the cloying bubble of TrumpLand, and take a look around?

(Saw something to-day that at first tickled but then horrified me. A bloke who was apparently engaged in politics, or the law - a field at least which demands at least a minimum education and intelligence standard - was explaining why there could never be a Muslim in the Senate. He claimed it was because you have to swear on a bible to become a Senator. Muslims wouldn't do this so it was clear to him that no Muslim could ever enter US politics.

When it was explained to him that a Christian bible was not an impediment because a candidate could swear on any book they held in esteem, this chap was dumbstruck. The clip ended in silence as he sat there occasionally gaping like a dying cod.

Geez! It's 2017. We have internet and everything! How is such a clip even possible? And how many "Laws of the Land" do clods like this pass?)
progpen
Posted: Thursday, December 14, 2017 4:40:36 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,737
Neurons: 262,046
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
Romany, I've heard the bible argument several times over the past 10 or more years and the fact that it is still bandied about by the conservatives just shows that the Internet isn't being used for more than porn and Breitbart in some circles.

I do believe that the "time to think about new laws" should come after the time to stop vilifying public service and government. The right wing has made "anti-government" their mantra for so long that they are incapable of governing in any human or humane way. Once they have outgrown this phase and are able to talk about government policy without snarling or spitting, we will be ready to move on to thinking about new laws. Until then we will get much of the same.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
philips daughter
Posted: Thursday, December 14, 2017 6:07:12 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/21/2017
Posts: 188
Neurons: 43,401
There is a good opinion piece in today’s Newsweek, Kate Oh. She begins by stating that in a representative democracy, citizens are supposed to supervise government and hold leadership responsible. Trump resists all efforts by the public, the press and the legislature to seek any information on any subject. In fact, if you ask you are labeled an enemy of the government. And yes! Those facts scare me! Not only does Trump create a void of information he fills it with propaganda and falsehoods. His tweets aren’t transparent. He uses them to “destabilize the existents of an objective reality where the truth matters.”

Oh and by the way some religions don’t swear on anything and only aver to the truth or else, one’s allegiances. What do atheists do when they swear in? I don’t know if Muslims would swear in on the Koran. I don’t know their customs but, they might think it wasn’t respectful enough.
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, December 14, 2017 6:46:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,798
Neurons: 45,024
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Besides the tweets mentioned in the OP, and the fact that Trump has retweeted tweets from at least one other alt rightist who believes in the Pizzagate and Seth Rich conspiracies, a couple of other examples of fear-mongering from the current occupant of the Oval Office are:

"If Crooked Hillary got elected, you would not have a 2nd Amendment, believe me."
Trump knows this isn't true. Clinton, in the campaign, said these exact words: "I do not want to repeal the 2nd Amendment." He said this same thing throughout the campaign despite fact check after fact check calling it a lie. What Trump is doing is purposefully playing on conservatives' fears that Democrats would somehow outlaw guns if they had the chance."


That quote is a lie with no basis in reality - pure fear-mongering and the Repubs do it every election to the Dem candidate. People in FL told me Al Gore was going to take away their guns during that election. (I've mentioned this before on the Forum and because I was so shocked to hear her say it that I've never forgotten it - one young clerk told me God told her to vote for Bush because Gore was going to take away her guns.)

http://time.com/4665755/donald-trump-fear/

But Trump is the king of fear-mongering - see the above link. And check out a list of his favourite words I gleaned from just a couple of his speeches.

A few are: dirty, rotten, disgusting, disaster, sad, nasty, carnage, destroying, ravages, bad, sad, out-of-control, a horrible mess, dangerous, did I mention disaster?


The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, December 14, 2017 7:02:56 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,798
Neurons: 45,024
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
I saw that video too, Romany. I wasn't horrified. I've watched many interview videos since the US campaign started. My thought was "Typical. They'll believe anything they are told." Trump observed that himself and said so. That's why he tweets the media is "fake news". Don't watch any channel except Fox News. You might hear something you don't like. You can't understand and figure it out or check it for yourself. Listen to me. I'm the only one who can fix it. That's fear-mongering and patronizing blather at its finest.

So back to Will's question - "Extremists don’t deserve the oxygen of publicity. The question is how the rational world deals with this kind of hate filled fear mongering when it come direct from the White House. "

I don't know, Will. It is hard when those in power have the voice and the media seems to follow every distraction of the current occupant of the Oval Office.

Wisdom tells us that one voice can help and especially if that one voice gathers others. Social media does that quite well. The #MeToo was started by one woman a year ago but didn't get traction until another brave woman stood up against Weinstein. Look at it now. One voice to start but power in numbers.

Ordinary people have to stand up for what they think is right. What is being said is: Vote, become involved and be a politician yourself. Write letters, retweet posts you like, tell your friends how you really feel. Post on forums that one can disagree without being hateful towards any group as that is destructive.

Two nights ago 96% of black women went out and voted against a bigot. And started an anti-Trumpism political trend that I hope will continue and catch on. But they did more than vote anti someone. They voted FOR a GOOD man who put KKK murderers into jail and has served to help others in his life. They voted FOR right and AGAINST wrong.They put their political right and left views aside to do that.

There are extremists on both the political right and left, and the hatred they spew and the methods they promote are all wrong.

For everybody, not just the US - So be on the side of goodness, empathy, sympathy and compassion and show it. That's all I've got. Maybe others have some positive suggestions as to how to stop all the negativity being generated by America these days, and not just by their leader. Negativity and fear are what elected him. The statistics show a jump in fear in the last couple of years in America. I wonder why.

The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, December 14, 2017 8:10:49 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,798
Neurons: 45,024
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
I've already been longwinded. But I had another thought about how to deal with more teeth with the White House's remarks that denigrate others.

The opposition leader of Ontario's provincial government and another politician in his party made public comments that made it seem that the Premier of Ontario was on trial. In fact she was a witness in a trial. She asked for an apology. The one politician apologized hours after he got her lawyer's letter. But the opposition leader refuses to this day to apologize. So the premier said, that although she is still waiting for an apology and would withdraw the action, she will not tolerate Trump style politics and yesterday launched a lawsuit for $100,000 against the opposition leader. Good for her.

Trump's reputation is that he "talks straight" so that the average person can relate to him. That is so much baloney when all he does on Twitter is to insinuate slurs - just enough that everybody knows what he means but he can backtrack if necessary. He is not that tone deaf that he didn't know that saying "she will do anything" to a woman is the same as saying that to a man. Or that the "second amendment" group should go after Hillary when her secret service was not there. However he phrased it, we all knew exactly what he meant.

But there are tweets where he did say outrageous accusations against people. Obama wiretapped him is the only example I have in mind without looking at his Twitter feed which I never do. So why hasn't anyone sued him?

The US is a more litigious country than Canada. So why hasn't someone sued him for these character attacks? He has enough other lawsuits against him.

Where is this ethics committee I hear exists? Why aren't these women who have accused Trump of misbehavior not suing him? Are they afraid? Have no money and he does? Can politicians and in particular the president not be sued in the US?



The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
will
Posted: Friday, December 15, 2017 7:04:50 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,077
Neurons: 4,357
Where’s Listening… ? There must be at least one person on this forum, from the opposing viewpoint, with an ability to string together a coherent argument. Think
We still haven’t seen a sensible defence of why it is at all acceptable for the President of a leading world power to tweet a lie that legitimatises a group that physically and verbally abuse innocent individuals on the basis of their colour and culture.

Romany wrote:
When it was explained to him that a Christian bible was not an impediment because a candidate could swear on any book they held in esteem, this chap was dumbstruck.

Perhaps in principle, but in practice one doesn’t get very far in American politics without a Bible by your side ( even if only for political expediency). Even being a member of a particular brand of bizarre Christian cult, founded by some fantasist in the 1820’s, will do. ‘Other’ religious affiliations are completely unrepresented in the Senate, but do only make up 4.3% of the population (despite the fear-mongering tales of 'them' sweeping across the nation like a plague of locusts). The real political taboo is having no supernatural beliefs; those without religious affiliation are represented by 3% of the Senate for 22.8% of the population.

philips daughter wrote:
Not only does Trump create a void of information he fills it with propaganda and falsehoods. His tweets aren’t transparent. He uses them to “destabilize the existents of an objective reality where the truth matters.”

Exactly... although thankfully with limited success. Here in the UK, pretty much the only mention one hears about Trump is as the butt of jokes or ‘What has Trump said now!’ pieces.
He rarely makes serious news, unless our Government is required to address something directly – for example, to state plainly the facts about groups like Britain First, or re-state a commitment to a rational approach to world affairs. If American politics is discussed, it’s always one step removed from the White House; we tend to talk about the bigger picture. Trump and his cronies are reserved for ridicule… and lately I’ve noticed even comedians seem bored of his antics.


.
philips daughter
Posted: Friday, December 15, 2017 8:16:23 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/21/2017
Posts: 188
Neurons: 43,401
I just read that Ted Cruz and his party are calling liberals “Snowflake.” I had never heard that term so I looked it up in the Urban Dictionary. This is what it refers to. “. . . the human ash In the air when the Nazis burned human flesh.” That is so disgusting. Does that give you a chill when a law maker refers to his opposition in such terms? Is that a thinly veiled threat?

I don’t know where the conservatives are but, I would love to hear them explain that one.
progpen
Posted: Friday, December 15, 2017 9:41:08 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,737
Neurons: 262,046
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
philips daughter wrote:
I just read that Ted Cruz and his party are calling liberals “Snowflake.” I had never heard that term so I looked it up in the Urban Dictionary. This is what it refers to. “. . . the human ash In the air when the Nazis burned human flesh.” That is so disgusting. Does that give you a chill when a law maker refers to his opposition in such terms? Is that a thinly veiled threat?

I don’t know where the conservatives are but, I would love to hear them explain that one.


This particular dog whistle is a great example of how conservatives in general and the Republican party specifically have used them over the past decades. They know that saying something outright and in the clear would create an outcry from the public that might hurt their next election chances, so they create these secondary meanings, which gives them plausible deniability. When the term comes up in an interview or other venue, Cruz can play dumb (not a stretch for him) and say, "I don't know what you are talking about, I was just saying they are all cute as snowflakes and what could be the harm in that?"

Also, this plays into the "fear mongering" vs. "observed reality". When they threaten others and play dumb after, they invariably whine about how the leftys are fear mongers.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Romany
Posted: Friday, December 15, 2017 9:49:26 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,063
Neurons: 43,363
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
I had never heard the Nazi story to "snowflake" and yes, it did disgust me. So I went digging. I didn't find any references to the term going back that far, or to the Nazis - had there been any, the whole idea of its usage would have stopped being political and become racial, surely? People wouldn't be able to use it in public.

Had the word been around since the 1930s we would have come across it long before now. Notwithstanding the fact that any words the Nazis used would have been in German!

I did find the following explained in quite a few places, however. It sounds much more feasible to me, and the date fits the emergence of the current meaning of "snowflake".

"A much-memed line from Chuck Palahniuk’s Fight Club expresses a very early version of the sentiment in 1996: “You are not special. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same organic and decaying matter as everyone else.”
Absinthius
Posted: Friday, December 15, 2017 9:52:42 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/23/2015
Posts: 349
Neurons: 22,711
Location: Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands
To be fair to Cruz The word 'Snowflake' as a social term has another meaning than the one Philips Daughter presents. The 'urban dictionary' defines it as:

Quote:
An extremely fragile individual -often, but not always associated with millennial's. Someone who has never faced any real adversity in life and therefore is easily traumatized by anything out of the ordinary or anything contradictory to their narrow views. They've been shielded from views and perspective that persuade right of center and have been immersed in liberal propaganda in the schools and from the media. They think they are very intelligent and gifted -because their mothers, teachers and left-leaning individuals have told them so their whole lives.


I have heard the term used to describe protesters against free speech that have apparently been haunting many universities in the US. A recent interview I saw referred to protesters that took offense to gender-specific pronouns as being 'snowflakes'.

I suspect Cruz was using the word in this way rather than the morbid definiton Philips Daughter has encountered on the web.

EDIT: For the record, I am not advocating use of this word nor should my post be confused with agreement to Cruz' tweet.

Look, how about this? Let's pretend we've had the row and I've won. See? It saves a lot of effort.
progpen
Posted: Friday, December 15, 2017 10:00:03 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,737
Neurons: 262,046
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
I've heard both uses and I think they are aware of both uses as well, which means they would know that their dog whistle is offensive on several levels.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Hope123
Posted: Friday, December 15, 2017 10:07:08 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,798
Neurons: 45,024
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FounDit uses the term "snowflake" in a derogatory political modern sense all the time on the forum. The first time it was in regard to university students he decided were wimps. I vaguely recall he used it in a general sense to refer to lefties but I don't remember for sure. However, I believe both US parties now use it in a derogatory sense about their opponents. I did a thread about the real meaning of beautiful crystals of snow trying to take back the word - but that never works once a word is vulgarized like that.


The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
Hope123
Posted: Friday, December 15, 2017 10:09:39 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,798
Neurons: 45,024
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
I thought maybe TFDers from other countries might find interesting this article that explains some of the reasons why SOME Americans are so afraid of Muslims from certain countries and not of the Saudis who perpetrated 9/11. It makes their generalized fear more understandable.


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-glyn-williams/they-will-kill-us-all-cri_b_6174566.html

I don't have the exact date when it happened a few years ago, but read what the media promoted that Lindsay Graham, Sarah Palin, and John Boehner said about raising the black flag of Allah over the White House "just like Hitler" and "killing us all" after three Americans were horrifically beheaded by ISIS.

Fox News speculated that ISIS could give money to Mexican cartels and bring the disaster right to and over the American border.

Those to me are examples of REAL fear-mongering, made more real by the credibility given to these people who said it. Lindsey Graham is a retired U.S. Air Force Colonel and hawk who is a Republican Senator, John Boehner was the Republican speaker of the House and leader till he was forced out by his own party, and we all know who Sarah Palin is. Maybe since these are Republican leaders, that is why it is the Republicans who are so afraid that they backed Trump on his immigration policies more so than the Democrats did. I am only surmising.

:::::.

In fact, Senator Lindsey Graham, who golfs with Trump, is now placing odds at 30% that Trump will attack North Korea if nothing changes. i.e. if China doesn't remove Un. "The U.S. Senator from South Carolina told theatlantic.com that if North Korea conducts another nuclear missile test, “then all bets are off.” Up to a 70% chance.

They have shot down Tillerson's desire for talks with North Korea. How can any problem ever be solved peaceably without communication?

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article189846944.html#storylink=cpy

Since Graham golfs with Trump, does that make it more of a possibility rather than fear mongering?

Of course even Trump himself never knows what he might say or do until he does it.

The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
philips daughter
Posted: Friday, December 15, 2017 10:16:45 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/21/2017
Posts: 188
Neurons: 43,401
Thank you Absinthius. I would prefer your definition and I won’t take it as your endorsement. Fifty years ago the two parties would refer to one another as the “loyal opposition” meaning I don’t question your loyalty just your logic. Now days, to be in opposition is to be an enemy of the state. And Proggy, I agree they know they are being divisive. And they do it over and over again. That is deplorable.
Listening . . .
Posted: Friday, December 15, 2017 4:28:50 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2011
Posts: 957
Neurons: 3,915
will wrote:
Listening… wrote:
Why the focus on one tweet from POTUS? Don’t the offenders speak loudly enough for themselves to validate fear? Innocent people are being murdered in the name of Islam.

Hi Listening. Good to see you again… or maybe not, if you really can’t see the wrong in the President of a leading world power tweeting a lie and legitimatising a group that physically and verbally abuse innocent individuals on the basis of their colour and culture. Eh?

As you know, I have little tolerance for any irrational act perpetrated by anyone in the name of any Faith, but I’m not so naive as to believe that Britain First are representative of Christianity any more than Muslims are the type of people who are naturally inclined to beat up a disabled person.

A lie is a lie; the ends do not justify the means.

People are being murdered in the name of many things; in recent years Islamic fundamentalists have had particularly success in distorting the facts to encourage mentally unstable individuals to commit acts of terror, but surely you can see that acts committed by individuals, or even groups of individuals, in the name of particular ideologies do not validate the use of lies and further distortions of facts in an attempt to attach such abhorrent ideologies to entire cultures.

Add in to that (from some Muslim points of view) western political interference, military occupation, and inflammatory tweets and the narrative our ‘enemies’ create for our evil western culture is so much easier to believe. The ‘us’ and ‘them’ clash of civilisation is a myth that is encouraged by both sides for political gain.

The bottom line is this: Do you think Trump’s anti-Muslim tweets are more or less likely to inflame the situation and lead to further extremist acts?


.



Hi, Will. Thank you for the “sort of” welcome back. d'oh!

I have a tough time on this issue since I see both sides as having valid points. I agree that for an individual it’s never a good idea to judge an entire group based on one person’s acts. However, I think a leader of a country has a duty to provide safety to the citizens of the country. Sadly, providing such safety may be delivered by identifying the whole group’s philosophy in witnessing actions of the group’s smaller parts.
My question is this: When does the actions of the few become a true threat for the many? In my mind, fear mongering is not what I see taking place. It is recognizing a threat and beginning to coordinate defenses. What has to happen/not happen to justify the mobility of defense?

Bottom line, a lie IS a lie. Until it’s not a lie.
progpen
Posted: Friday, December 15, 2017 10:56:40 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,737
Neurons: 262,046
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
Is it unfair to judge all white middle class males as white supremacists who are a clear and present danger to the health and stability of the United States because a small number of them are?

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
will
Posted: Sunday, December 17, 2017 8:00:28 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,077
Neurons: 4,357
Listening... wrote:
However, I think a leader of a country has a duty to provide safety to the citizens of the country.

True. In the UK a particular group of our citizens are verbally and physically assaulted on a daily basis because of bigotry and stereotyping attached to lies designed to spread fear and hate.

The protection of UK citizens was the reason our Prime Minister was forced (not an action a professional world leader takes lightly) to publicly point out that the US President was “wrong” to retweet anti-Muslim videos promoting a far-right group that use “hateful narratives which peddle lies and stoke tensions.”

Validating groups like Britain First doesn’t only put innocent UK citizens of a particular colour and religion in danger by fuelling the fear and hatred against them, it puts us all in increased danger by fuelling the radicalisation of mentally vulnerable individuals from that community by perpetuating the clash of civilisations myth.

Trump’s response to our Prime Minister’s diplomatic attempts to calmly defuse the situation, with a rational stating of the facts, was to behave like an internet troll and fire off an angry admonishing tweet telling her how to do her job – the fact that the shaved orangutan that passes as your President couldn’t even manage to operate Twitter correctly suggests that he is supremely unqualified to advise on the complexities of world politics.

The later ‘considered’ White House response was to effectively say that the facts don’t matter.

Listening... wrote:
Sadly, providing such safety may be delivered by identifying the whole group’s philosophy in witnessing actions of the group’s smaller parts.

The important point here can be demonstrated by looking literally at the actual events as they occurred:

Are you saying it was right for a world leader (for the safety of his citizens) to identify the philosophy of the Dutch in general by witnessing the actions of one Dutch national of undetermined religion?

Or are you saying it was right for a world leader (for the safety of his citizens) to identify the (supposed) philosophy of Muslims in general by witnessing the actions of one Dutch national of undetermined religion?

Listening... wrote:
My question is this: When does the actions of the few become a true threat for the many?

It becomes true when it is true.
And if it were at all true that Muslims – as a collective group – are a threat, then it wouldn’t be necessary to spread demonstrable lies to make that point.

Listening... wrote:
In my mind, fear mongering is not what I see taking place. It is recognizing a threat and beginning to coordinate defenses. What has to happen/not happen to justify the mobility of defense?

What has to (and in fact does) happen is a rational assessment of genuine threats to mobilise a rational response. I suggest you have bought into the fear-mongering myth that the bogeyman is waiting to attack and no-one (other than Trump) is doing anything about it. This is also a cynically constructed lie, and exactly the point being made in this thread.

Our Government and our intelligence agencies, like all sovereign states, know perfectly well the actual threat from Islamic extremists, as well as the threat from far-right nationalists, and also the threat from unstable leaders of rogue states that stoop to the same level for personal political gains.

Listening... wrote:
Bottom line, a lie IS a lie. Until it’s not a lie.

This sounds very much like a description of self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s a lie that dogs are inherently dangerous, but provoking dogs until one attacks someone does not make the original lie any more true.



.
philips daughter
Posted: Sunday, December 17, 2017 12:44:51 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/21/2017
Posts: 188
Neurons: 43,401
Will wrote
Listening... wrote:
Bottom line, a lie IS a lie. Until it’s not a lie.

This sounds very much like a description of self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s a lie that dogs are inherently dangerous, but provoking dogs until one attacks someone does not make the original lie any more true.



.[/quote]
Applause A lie is a lie or it would be the truth.
progpen
Posted: Sunday, December 17, 2017 9:45:24 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,737
Neurons: 262,046
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
So white middle class male Americans don't tell lies, they just tell truths that are not yet the truth and may never become the truth but are not yet lies. I'm thinking Shroedinger's cat would be able to figure this one out.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Hope123
Posted: Monday, December 18, 2017 2:27:59 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,798
Neurons: 45,024
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
JaydaBF's Twitter account was suspended. It was from this account that Trump retweeted the anti-Muslim videos.

Most of the tweets in response that I saw said "Good". Some said why not Trump's too since he retweeted? That Twitter shoud apply the rules more equitably than it does!

Another said it is free speech. I didn't read it. If it is hate speech, then it shouldn't be free.

The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
Hope123
Posted: Monday, December 18, 2017 3:30:27 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,798
Neurons: 45,024
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
What's your take on this story re fear mongering, FounDit? Listening?

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/12/18/fox-news-sparks-outrage-with-suggestion-that-muellers-russia-investigation-is-a-coup.html



The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
Listening . . .
Posted: Monday, December 18, 2017 10:24:08 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2011
Posts: 957
Neurons: 3,915
will wrote:
Listening... wrote:
However, I think a leader of a country has a duty to provide safety to the citizens of the country.

True. In the UK a particular group of our citizens are verbally and physically assaulted on a daily basis because of bigotry and stereotyping attached to lies designed to spread fear and hate.

The protection of UK citizens was the reason our Prime Minister was forced (not an action a professional world leader takes lightly) to publicly point out that the US President was “wrong” to retweet anti-Muslim videos promoting a far-right group that use “hateful narratives which peddle lies and stoke tensions.”

Validating groups like Britain First doesn’t only put innocent UK citizens of a particular colour and religion in danger by fuelling the fear and hatred against them, it puts us all in increased danger by fuelling the radicalisation of mentally vulnerable individuals from that community by perpetuating the clash of civilisations myth.

Trump’s response to our Prime Minister’s diplomatic attempts to calmly defuse the situation, with a rational stating of the facts, was to behave like an internet troll and fire off an angry admonishing tweet telling her how to do her job – the fact that the shaved orangutan that passes as your President couldn’t even manage to operate Twitter correctly suggests that he is supremely unqualified to advise on the complexities of world politics.

The later ‘considered’ White House response was to effectively say that the facts don’t matter.

Listening... wrote:
Sadly, providing such safety may be delivered by identifying the whole group’s philosophy in witnessing actions of the group’s smaller parts.

The important point here can be demonstrated by looking literally at the actual events as they occurred:

Are you saying it was right for a world leader (for the safety of his citizens) to identify the philosophy of the Dutch in general by witnessing the actions of one Dutch national of undetermined religion?

Or are you saying it was right for a world leader (for the safety of his citizens) to identify the (supposed) philosophy of Muslims in general by witnessing the actions of one Dutch national of undetermined religion?

Listening... wrote:
My question is this: When does the actions of the few become a true threat for the many?

It becomes true when it is true.
And if it were at all true that Muslims – as a collective group – are a threat, then it wouldn’t be necessary to spread demonstrable lies to make that point.

Listening... wrote:
In my mind, fear mongering is not what I see taking place. It is recognizing a threat and beginning to coordinate defenses. What has to happen/not happen to justify the mobility of defense?

What has to (and in fact does) happen is a rational assessment of genuine threats to mobilise a rational response. I suggest you have bought into the fear-mongering myth that the bogeyman is waiting to attack and no-one (other than Trump) is doing anything about it. This is also a cynically constructed lie, and exactly the point being made in this thread.

Our Government and our intelligence agencies, like all sovereign states, know perfectly well the actual threat from Islamic extremists, as well as the threat from far-right nationalists, and also the threat from unstable leaders of rogue states that stoop to the same level for personal political gains.

Listening... wrote:
Bottom line, a lie IS a lie. Until it’s not a lie.

This sounds very much like a description of self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s a lie that dogs are inherently dangerous, but provoking dogs until one attacks someone does not make the original lie any more true.



.


I think we can all agree that Trump is not the most refined politician in the arena. d'oh! However, I don’t believe Trump delivers any message that he believes is false. In other words, Trump believes what he is saying. Therefore, he is not telling a lie. I sincerely do not believe he is intent on misleading US citizens (or the world) into fearing a group of people. The group of people are speaking loudly enough for themselves about their intended direction. I suspect the victims and the families of the victims of terrorist attacks understand Trump’s movement toward mobilizing a defense. If, as you state that this type response is all based in waking fear in the weak-minded, how do you explain what has happened to the families of the dead? Do you tell them that fearing (or being angry) toward the group that killed their loved one is not justified; that there is not a group to fear, in fact? Their lost loved ones matter. It would be nice to slow the hate that moves such violence. How do we do that?

Listening . . .
Posted: Monday, December 18, 2017 10:26:11 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2011
Posts: 957
Neurons: 3,915
progpen wrote:
So white middle class male Americans don't tell lies, they just tell truths that are not yet the truth and may never become the truth but are not yet lies. I'm thinking Shroedinger's cat would be able to figure this one out.


Prog,
For someone who doesn’t like racists and unequal treatment, you certainly seem to blast the white male.Shame on you
Listening . . .
Posted: Monday, December 18, 2017 10:29:22 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2011
Posts: 957
Neurons: 3,915
philips daughter wrote:
Will wrote
Listening... wrote:
Bottom line, a lie IS a lie. Until it’s not a lie.

This sounds very much like a description of self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s a lie that dogs are inherently dangerous, but provoking dogs until one attacks someone does not make the original lie any more true.



.

Applause A lie is a lie or it would be the truth. [/quote]

Fair enough!
March Hare
Posted: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 2:30:41 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/4/2014
Posts: 261
Neurons: 1,475,740
Location: Zedelgem, Flanders, Belgium
Listening . . . wrote:
progpen wrote:
So white middle class male Americans don't tell lies, they just tell truths that are not yet the truth and may never become the truth but are not yet lies. I'm thinking Shroedinger's cat would be able to figure this one out.


Prog,
For someone who doesn’t like racists and unequal treatment, you certainly seem to blast the white male.Shame on you


If a number of people who happen to be Muslims are terrorists, does that give people the right to label all Muslims as terrorists? If yes, then a number of white males lying through their teeth also gives people the right to call all white males liars.

Generalizations are never a good thing, about any group of the population, because they are at the root of racism, sexism, and other such unpleasant -isms. My guess is that this is exactly what Progpen is trying to show here, by reversing the racism so that you would recognize it more easily.
will
Posted: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 6:57:46 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,077
Neurons: 4,357
Listening... wrote:
I think we can all agree that Trump is not the most refined politician in the arena. However, I don’t believe Trump delivers any message that he believes is false. In other words, Trump believes what he is saying. Therefore, he is not telling a lie. I sincerely do not believe he is intent on misleading US citizens (or the world) into fearing a group of people. The group of people are speaking loudly enough for themselves about their intended direction. I suspect the victims and the families of the victims of terrorist attacks understand Trump’s movement toward mobilizing a defense.

Listening... I don’t want to drag this discussion on much further, I might not agree with you, but at least you are able to plainly state the ‘other’ side without feeling the need to resort to polemic and stereotyping; I genuinely appreciate that... and flogging it out until you finally see how wrong you are is not worth the animosity. Whistle I giveth with one hand...

I will say, however, that your argument works in exactly the same way as justification for the Taliban or ISIS; they don’t believe what they are saying is false, they genuinely (at least to the same political degree) believe the fear of ‘us’ is justified. Western military invasions, corporate occupation, physical and verbal abuse on the streets of one’s adopted country and lying tweets that attempt to portray Muslims – as a group – as savages, are all actions that ‘speak loudly enough for themselves’. The victims of decades of Western interference in the Middle East understand...etc.

Actually, that last point (and yours before) is ‘begging the question, a logical fallacy; there is no evidence to suggest that victims of terror are inclined to understand or support the actions of those that further perpetuate terror and, in this case, the ‘clash of civilisation’ myth. It’s this self-fulfilling cycle that extremists attempt to exploit. In fact the most common response to most attacks, in my experience, is one of peace, compassion, unity and hope.

Others have made this point already, but it’s worth repeating: peace, compassion, unity and hope are hard ideals to achieve. Whereas fear, hate and division are easy. This is why we have a situation where the overwhelming majority of humanity – including this old ‘lefty’ – want the former, but are drowned out by the tiny minority that promote the latter.

Listening... wrote:
If, as you state that this type response is all based in waking fear in the weak-minded, how do you explain what has happened to the families of the dead?

Sorry, I don’t understand the question. I think you've misunderstood what I said.

Listening... wrote:
Do you tell them that fearing (or being angry) toward the group that killed their loved one is not justified; that there is not a group to fear, in fact?

Which ‘group that killed their loved one’ are you referring to? Muslims in general? Muslims from a particular country? Migrants? Dutch nationals? Or males that beat up disabled people?
I suggest your use of the term ‘group’ is buying into the unqualified ‘us’ and ‘them’ fear-mongering that the likes of Trump are promoting.

Listening... wrote:
Their lost loved ones matter. It would be nice to slow the hate that moves such violence.

As I said before, the bottom line is this: do you think Trump’s anti-Muslim tweets are more likely or less likely to inflame the situation and lead to further hate and violence? Do you really believe that extremists are going to throw in the towel because the figurehead of Western imperialism portrays Muslims as savages, by tweeting a video of a Dutch national of undetermined religion beating up a disabled person? Eh?

I suspect the reason the White House, and Trump supporters, refuse to admit the obvious wrong in this particular incident is because it is in no way an isolated case.

Listening... wrote:
How do we do that?

We, the overwhelming majority of humanity, do that by promoting peace, compassion, unity, hope, rationality and truth, and by rejecting hate, fear and lies.


.
will
Posted: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 6:59:51 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,077
Neurons: 4,357
March Hare wrote:
...unpleasant-isms...

My new favourite phrase Applause


.
progpen
Posted: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 7:15:42 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,737
Neurons: 262,046
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
Listening . . . wrote:
progpen wrote:
So white middle class male Americans don't tell lies, they just tell truths that are not yet the truth and may never become the truth but are not yet lies. I'm thinking Shroedinger's cat would be able to figure this one out.


Prog,
For someone who doesn’t like racists and unequal treatment, you certainly seem to blast the white male.Shame on you


I am a white middle class 'Murrican male. Your point?

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
progpen
Posted: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 7:23:16 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,737
Neurons: 262,046
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
March Hare wrote:
Listening . . . wrote:
progpen wrote:
So white middle class male Americans don't tell lies, they just tell truths that are not yet the truth and may never become the truth but are not yet lies. I'm thinking Shroedinger's cat would be able to figure this one out.


Prog,
For someone who doesn’t like racists and unequal treatment, you certainly seem to blast the white male.Shame on you


If a number of people who happen to be Muslims are terrorists, does that give people the right to label all Muslims as terrorists? If yes, then a number of white males lying through their teeth also gives people the right to call all white males liars.

Generalizations are never a good thing, about any group of the population, because they are at the root of racism, sexism, and other such unpleasant -isms. My guess is that this is exactly what Progpen is trying to show here, by reversing the racism so that you would recognize it more easily.


Thank you March Hare. Yes, that is what I'm doing but Listening doesn't seem to catch on to that sort of thing, so I then resort to being direct and he ignores me. Ah well, what can you do?

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Listening . . .
Posted: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 12:48:11 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2011
Posts: 957
Neurons: 3,915
will wrote:
Listening... wrote:
I think we can all agree that Trump is not the most refined politician in the arena. However, I don’t believe Trump delivers any message that he believes is false. In other words, Trump believes what he is saying. Therefore, he is not telling a lie. I sincerely do not believe he is intent on misleading US citizens (or the world) into fearing a group of people. The group of people are speaking loudly enough for themselves about their intended direction. I suspect the victims and the families of the victims of terrorist attacks understand Trump’s movement toward mobilizing a defense.

Listening... I don’t want to drag this discussion on much further, I might not agree with you, but at least you are able to plainly state the ‘other’ side without feeling the need to resort to polemic and stereotyping; I genuinely appreciate that... and flogging it out until you finally see how wrong you are is not worth the animosity. Whistle I giveth with one hand...

I thank you for the gesture. I fear, however, you might be the one to wave the white flag at the end of it all. ; )

I will say, however, that your argument works in exactly the same way as justification for the Taliban or ISIS; they don’t believe what they are saying is false, they genuinely (at least to the same political degree) believe the fear of ‘us’ is justified. Western military invasions, corporate occupation, physical and verbal abuse on the streets of one’s adopted country and lying tweets that attempt to portray Muslims – as a group – as savages, are all actions that ‘speak loudly enough for themselves’. The victims of decades of Western interference in the Middle East understand...etc.

This is a fair point. Both sides strongly believe their side is the right side. This conflict will continue until one survives and one dies. I suspect the western side would prefer to live in harmony but the other side plans terror attacks on innocent people - this act, in itself, doesn’t seem to beg for peace and harmony.

Actually, that last point (and yours before) is ‘begging the question, a logical fallacy; there is no evidence to suggest that victims of terror are inclined to understand or support the actions of those that further perpetuate terror and, in this case, the ‘clash of civilisation’ myth. It’s this self-fulfilling cycle that extremists attempt to exploit. In fact the most common response to most attacks, in my experience, is one of peace, compassion, unity and hope.

Others have made this point already, but it’s worth repeating: peace, compassion, unity and hope are hard ideals to achieve. Whereas fear, hate and division are easy. This is why we have a situation where the overwhelming majority of humanity – including this old ‘lefty’ – want the former, but are drowned out by the tiny minority that promote the latter.

Listening... wrote:
If, as you state that this type response is all based in waking fear in the weak-minded, how do you explain what has happened to the families of the dead?

Sorry, I don’t understand the question. I think you've misunderstood what I said.


Listening... wrote:
Do you tell them that fearing (or being angry) toward the group that killed their loved one is not justified; that there is not a group to fear, in fact?

Which ‘group that killed their loved one’ are you referring to? Muslims in general? Muslims from a particular country? Migrants? Dutch nationals? Or males that beat up disabled people?
I suggest your use of the term ‘group’ is buying into the unqualified ‘us’ and ‘them’ fear-mongering that the likes of Trump are promoting.

Listening... wrote:
Their lost loved ones matter. It would be nice to slow the hate that moves such violence.

As I said before, the bottom line is this: do you think Trump’s anti-Muslim tweets are more likely or less likely to inflame the situation and lead to further hate and violence? Do you really believe that extremists are going to throw in the towel because the figurehead of Western imperialism portrays Muslims as savages, by tweeting a video of a Dutch national of undetermined religion beating up a disabled person? Eh?

I don’t think Trump should Tweet. His ability to communicate lacks clarity and, sadly, refinement. I don’t think his tweets are helpful to the situation but I also don’t think they have substantial impact on the decisions of terrorists to continue to terrorize. Obama was an outstanding orator and chose his words carefully - there was neither a decrease in terrorist attacks nor a diminished level of fear or anger.

I suspect the reason the White House, and Trump supporters, refuse to admit the obvious wrong in this particular incident is because it is in no way an isolated case.

Listening... wrote:
How do we do that?

We, the overwhelming majority of humanity, do that by promoting peace, compassion, unity, hope, rationality and truth, and by rejecting hate, fear and lies.

I wholeheartedly love this idea. Peace, compassion, unity, hope, rationality, and truth. If only the human condition didn’t screw these up so badly, compassion, hope, rationality, and truth would (in theory) bring peace and unity. When, in human history, has there been such a utopian existence? I suspect you will say there hasn’t but it’s the right direction to strive toward. I do my part. I am kind and compassionate to everyone and, sometimes, too trusting. I seek peace and not conflict. I am hopeful for a bright future.
BUT I am not going to leave my doors unlocked for the gang members that may have moved into my neighborhood (and I am certainly not going to invite them in for milk and cookies! They want to pillage and plunder and will leave me for dead. Hypothetical neighborhood situation for demonstration purposes only.).


.





Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.