The Political & Philosophy Thread

[HamburgerBoy]

My comment isn't suggesting that his remarks have only one meaning, but that their contradictory and ambiguous nature inevitably renders certain meanings nonsensical and logically incomplete.

I'd call you an illiterate, but you're really tarnishing the word.

But it's not remotely contradictory or ambiguous if you remember that promise doesn't only mean what you initially claimed it only meant. If you can't understand what Trump meant, it means your English comprehension is below even the 4th grade level at which Trump speaks.

@HamburgerBoy Well the neutering of radical candidates can only occur when other politicians aren't afraid. I think that's underlying his point.

Congressmen have much less to fear though. They market themselves to their immediate state/district, and as long as they say the right words for their local constituency and deliver enough pork, they're good. The only ones that have to fear are those in purple areas, which naturally means replacing one milquetoast suit with another. It's true that the trend is towards increasingly left-wing politicians in blue areas and increasingly right-wing ones in red areas, but save for the aforementioned cataclysm, fringe people will never make up a majority.

 

[Einherjar86]

But it's not remotely contradictory or ambiguous if you remember that promise doesn't only mean what you initially claimed it only meant.

If promise can mean more than one thing, then that makes the remark ambiguous.

When did I claim that the word "promise" only means one thing?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

If promise can mean more than one thing, then that makes the remark ambiguous.

When did I claim that the word "promise" only means one thing?

I'm curious how you can even function within the English language using only words with only a single definition.

Your entire case against Trump rested on the use of a single word, 'promise', along a single definition of that word. The only alternative you presented to his use of said word along the definition that you think he meant was that he was joking: "if he can turn right around and say 'But I wasn't being serious--I can't help it if they wanted to interfere!'" You repeatedly refused to acknowledge multiple meanings of the word, and acted as if none such thing existed. If you're not just being completely intellectually dishonest, all signs point to you being unaware of alternative meanings of the word. Since every single argument with you boils down to semantic masturbation and backtracking, rather than say factual or logical backtracking, I've come to the conclusion that you are not intellectually dishonest, but simply illiterate.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm curious how you can even function within the English language using only words with only a single definition.

Your entire case against Trump rested on the use of a single word, 'promise', along a single definition of that word. The only alternative you presented to his use of said word along the definition that you think he meant was that he was joking: "if he can turn right around and say 'But I wasn't being serious--I can't help it if they wanted to interfere!'" You repeatedly refused to acknowledge multiple meanings of the word, and acted as if none such thing existed. If you're not just being completely intellectually dishonest, all signs point to you being unaware of alternative meanings of the word. Since every single argument with you boils down to semantic masturbation and backtracking, rather than say factual or logical backtracking, I've come to the conclusion that you are not intellectually dishonest, but simply illiterate.

When did I define the word promise? When did I do anything other than propose a hypothetical dichotomy between one ambiguous word ("promise") and an ambiguous denial ("that's not what I meant")? How, from any of this, are you deriving the notion that I'm precluding the possibility of multiple meanings? My "entire case" is based on the idea that Trump's comments can have multiple meanings. That's what makes them ambiguous.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

You proposed two meanings of Trump's statement: (1), the direct by-the-book definition interpretation, which you admitted was nonsense, or (2), that Trump said the word out loud as a kind of winkwink nudgenudge to deliver on things he could logically promise. The "ambiguity" was not you analyzing the word's meaning itself, but rather your own invented false dichotomy, which both rely on the only definition of the word you acknowledged. The multiple meanings both refer to the same meaning of the word as you used it.

 

[Einherjar86]

Posing a dichotomy is one means of demonstrating ambiguity. That doesn't automatically mean that those are the only two options. I was merely highlighting that the appearance of the remark allows Trump to be able to deny certain meanings. As far as I can tell, he purposefully avoids clarity and consistency at all costs. My dichotomy isn't false because it never presumed to be exhaustive.

 

[Dak]

I don't see any real ambiguity in the statement. We shouldn't even have needed this much discussion on it. It makes fine sense (hence plausible deniability - can't be plausible if it's total nonsense) as it is written. It's little different than me being on TV and saying "Hey Dallas Cowboys, I hope you win the Super Bowl, I promise you that the media/fans/your owner will reward you.

The ambiguity is manufactured via TDS. Paranoia.

Congressmen have much less to fear though. They market themselves to their immediate state/district, and as long as they say the right words for their local constituency and deliver enough pork, they're good. The only ones that have to fear are those in purple areas, which naturally means replacing one milquetoast suit with another. It's true that the trend is towards increasingly left-wing politicians in blue areas and increasingly right-wing ones in red areas, but save for the aforementioned cataclysm, fringe people will never make up a majority.

This is based on politics as usual history. The argument is that the future is less certain. This is the premise on which predictions of Trump's and Brexit's sure failure were based on. Our instant access, instant results demanding consumer populace is going to increasingly agitate for MORE, NOW, and social media and an Amazon Prime/Netflix mentality ("microwave mentality") will facilitate it. This can be a good or bad thing in politics, but I expect probably mostly bad.

 

[CiG]

Intended meaning is virtually and practically worthless when the remarks make no sense in the first place.

I know I'm just a working class schmuck but... isn't that when the intent behind a remark is most important, when it makes little to no sense to people who hear it? Seems rather tyrannical to render intent unimportant because you didn't understand the remark.

 

[Einherjar86]

I know I'm just a working class schmuck but... isn't that when the intent behind a remark is most important, when it makes little to no sense to people who hear it? Seems rather tyrannical to render intent unimportant because you didn't understand the remark.

Yes, for making some determination about the speaker, absolutely; but Trump's remarks almost always foreclose this possibility (w/ any certainty anyway).

My intended meaning ( ) is that if the remark is nonsensical to begin with (that is, if it remains nonsensical given all hypothetical combinations of plausible meanings and intentions), then it doesn't matter what the speaker's confessed intent is. It won't magically render the remark sensible. [insert jab at my reasoning here ]

In such a hypothetical scenario, the only logical intention would be to promote confusion. Which is probably Trump's motive, most of the time.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

(that is, if it remains nonsensical given all hypothetical combinations of plausible meanings and intentions)

Finally you admit it.

 

[Einherjar86]

Yeah, I never denied it. Not sure what caused such a problem for you.

 

[CiG]

In such a hypothetical scenario, the only logical intention would be to promote confusion. Which is probably Trump's motive, most of the time.

So you actually buy into the whole "muh 4D chess, Trump is secretly a genius" narrative?

 

[The Ozzman]

 

[Einherjar86]

So you actually buy into the whole "muh 4D chess, Trump is secretly a genius" narrative?

I really have no idea. But it doesn't take a first-rate IQ to generate confusion. As long as he has some idea that his comments don't necessarily follow from one another, he can produce an incoherent (even contradictory) set of possibilities, setting people scrambling over what he means. It might be a good rhetorical/political strategy, but it doesn't necessarily signify intelligence.

For my part, I strongly feel that Trump has a language/speech disability. People can appear to function perfectly normally with such conditions (I've had students with speech disabilities who sound and behave totally normally in class). In Trump's case, he's so secluded from most people most of the time that it probably goes largely unnoticed. In the case of his public appearances and interviews, he simply trots out the same phrases and words over and over again. Even his campaign speeches/debates were mostly comprised of name-calling and a few repeated buzzwords.

 

[CiG]

I don't know that I think he has a speech disability. Honestly as someone who basically grew up on worksites he reminds me of almost every single male foreman I've ever met, who thinks they have to (and this assumption is not without merit) act crass and boorish to fit in with the working class workforce.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think it's more than just being crass and boorish though. If you really listen to him talk, or just read transcripts, his language falls apart when it gets too long. Give him short, succinct sentences or buzzwords and he's fine; but make him try and craft a thoughtful response to a specific question and it seems very difficult for him. Not that people with modern social media-length attention spans notice all that much.

 

[CiG]

No I do agree with that. He's an absolutely terrible orator, his speeches are usually horrendous with extreme amounts of repetition and a very limited vocabulary etc. Basically he's terrible at political etiquette, but to go back to my point somewhat, these aren't really things the people who find him appealing even wanted (as in, they didn't want Mitt Romney 2.0) and this part of him is part of why the Republican establishment didn't want him.

Most Republicans are quite eloquent, buttoned down and frankly boring. For many people Trump is the straight-talk man with a low class stereotypically limited ability to express himself or tackle complex ideas or intricate questions. He'd rather just insult somebody and as much as this repulses certain people, they're foolish if they think it's something to be brought up in order to sway people who like him.

Any desire to see him operate like a career politician insider is completely missing the point of why some asswipe like him won in the first place.

 

[Dak]

He is probably experiencing neurocognitive decline, just based on comparing his interviews 20 years ago to now. However, we saw similar declines in complexity of language in W going from his Gubernatorial races to across his 8 years as President. I'm not sure how much the demands of the jobs and differing inputs from strategists and handlers contribute to a very muddled message in many cases.

But this press comment is one of them.

 

[Einherjar86]

Any desire to see him operate like a career politician insider is completely missing the point of why some asswipe like him won in the first place.

Yeah I know. It's a frustrating situation.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I think part of it is that he's just not a practiced public speaker. There's video of him speaking in front of a large crowd for his 2000 Reform Party run and he wasn't much better. You can be the most charismatic guy in the world in a group and still have that totally fail to translate behind a podium. The other part is that he doesn't really practice or try to learn about anything. My most optimistic hope for Trump is that Rand Paul and maybe a couple other non-shit conservatives continue defending him, even on the Russia stuff, and that they suck their way up to his inner-circle and use it to dictate meaningful and positive policy through him.