News Donald Trump Running for President

[William White]

If you have an opinion, state it. You don't have to state it in a hate-mongering fashion, but don't be a woosey and bow to political correctness.

This is the problem - because no matter how lightly you walk - somebody will be offended.

If an opinion of a politician is, for example, that halal slaughter should be banned; there would be a sizable proportion of muslims that would accuse the politician of hate speech.The problem is NOT people being politically incorrect; its not even the increasing number of people that are terminally offended by everything; the problem is the thinking classes CARING that people are offended.

You are offended. Great. Good for you. So what.

That should be the line

 

[WWGD]

Mexico would have no choice.
Very feasible. You probably mean 'construct...a wall" [Israeli's have already done it;border already there.]
Don't need MORE armed guards...for every 1,000 ft. All they need to be told: "Enforce existing US law."
Cost of mtc much less than cost of illegal rapists, thieves, drug dealers, cartel members.
Forever.
Anybody wants to come here legally and work, great.

Do you know for sure the rapists, etc. came through the Mexican border? They could have come in through different points, even legally, through airports, by going through Canada and going across the border, etc. The facts that there are rapists, etc. and the Mexican border is open does not imply that the criminals came through the Mexican border. So that is all speculation until there is evidence to this effect . And good luck waiting 5 yrs or so for your application to work in the US. I do have friends who have gone through it so I do know. And then be held by the 'nads by your boss who knows you cannot afford to lose your job.

 

[WWGD]

All else being equal though, I'd rather have an honest a-hole than a nice fraud.

This is the problem - because no matter how lightly you walk - somebody will be offended.

If an opinion of a politician is, for example, that halal slaughter should be banned; there would be a sizable proportion of muslims that would accuse the politician of hate speech.The problem is NOT people being politically incorrect; its not even the increasing number of people that are terminally offended by everything; the problem is the thinking classes CARING that people are offended.

You are offended. Great. Good for you. So what.

That should be the line

But you see, this has been studied and there are ways of being constructive, getting your point across and finding solutions; no need to be offensive. You can see, e.g., books on "Crucial Conversations". I don't mean being wishy-washy here; you do get your point across in a non-offensive way, because it is just not necessary to be offensive if you have the right skills (which I don't ). If you are not offensive, this allows the other party to lower its guard and address your points. This is not just about a trite "being nice" ; anyone can greatly benefit from this: you can voice out your disagreements in a way that they are most likely to be addressed, and you do this without sacrificing your dignity. Once the other party is offended, communication shuts down, and it escalates into a contest of who can hurt who the most.

Nor do I mean to preach; I could obviously be better at this myself.

 

[russ_watters]

There are two separate issues in that, though both are essentially that you are looking at the issues backwards:

1. You don't get to build Presidential candidates to order: you pick from the menu. In my view, the vast majority are the "nice fraud" variety.

2. You don't get to tell people what they are and aren't offended by: people get to decide for themselves. And some people simply will not accept negativity, no matter how nicely the message is dressed.

Both of these issues appear to me to be at play with Trump. To a person (like me) sick and tired of an endless stream of "nice frauds", an "honest a-hole" is a breath of fresh air. So I like his attitude: but he's got no substance and that's why I don't see him as a serious candidate. But others with unfocused/unthought anger might support him until the issues catch-up with him. At the same time, the media frenzy is based on attacking Trump for anything and everything they can get their hands on. Controversy sells newspapers (well...banner ads), so they love it and play it up.

For right now, these two sides are in a positive feedback-loop with each other.

 

[William White]

But you see, this has been studied and there are ways of being constructive, getting your point across and finding solutions; no need to be offensive. You can see, e.g., books on "Crucial Conversations". I don't mean being wishy-washy here; you do get your point across in a non-offensive way, because it is just not necessary to be offensive if you have the right skills (which I don't ). If you are not offensive, this allows the other party to lower its guard and address your points. This is not just about a trite "being nice" ; anyone can greatly benefit from this: you can voice out your disagreements in a way that they are most likely to be addressed, and you do this without sacrificing your dignity. Once the other party is offended, communication shuts down, and it escalates into a contest of who can hurt who the most.

Nor do I mean to preach; I could obviously be better at this myself.

But some people will always take offense; however slight the provocation.

That is the problem - there ARE ways of being constructive - and it has resulted in political correct behaviour.

Frankly, I don't care if people are offended, I'm in this camp
http://i.imgur.com/84yvB5p.jpg

 

[Finny]

I think you'd have to admit that Megyn Kelly was "baiting" Trump with those questions. Again, I'm not a huge fan of Trump, but I think he showed admirable restraint in the face of what I'd call a sucker-punch attack.

Trump is a big boy. Shame on Trump, assuming he used the words Megyn quoted, for crying 'unfair'. This is just a warm up, nothing compared to the mis characterizations that will come from the 'mess media'. Putin, radical terrorists and Kim Jong-Il, to name a few others, by that standard of 'unfair, would be off the charts. So far anything Trump has said has offended me loads less than did "redistribution'. Now THAT's scary!

On the other hand, if people previously thought Reagan might pull the nuclear trigger, what might foreign bad guys think about Trump? Do you think they would [a] try to goad him into a launch, be especially deferential fearing an outburst, or [c] refuse to even meet the guy for fear of being outmaneuvered?
[Sorry for the boldface...can't get rid it.]

 

[WWGD]

There are two separate issues in that, though both are essentially that you are looking at the issues backwards:

1. You don't get to build Presidential candidates to order: you pick from the menu. In my view, the vast majority are the "nice fraud" variety.

2. You don't get to tell people what they are and aren't offended by: people get to decide for themselves. And some people simply will not accept negativity, no matter how nicely the message is dressed.

Both of these issues appear to me to be at play with Trump. To a person (like me) sick and tired of an endless stream of "nice frauds", an "honest a-hole" is a breath of fresh air. So I like his attitude: but he's got no substance and that's why I don't see him as a serious candidate. But others with unfocused/unthought anger might support him until the issues catch-up with him. At the same time, the media frenzy is based on attacking Trump for anything and everything they can get their hands on. Controversy sells newspapers (well...banner ads), so they love it and play it up.

For right now, these two sides are in a positive feedback-loop with each other.

I agree with your first point, but on the 2nd, if you look at the situation at the right level of generality, there are significant commonalities to people's psychological make up, e.., everyone wants to save face , everyone wants to be heard, etc. You just need to adapt these ideas to the situation at hand in the right way.

But some people will always take offense; however slight the provocation.

That is the problem - there ARE ways of being constructive - and it has resulted in political correct behaviour.

Frankly, I don't care if people are offended, I'm in this camp
http://i.imgur.com/84yvB5p.jpg

Yes, well, you cannot have a guarantee of something that will work all the time, but you can try to maximize the odds of having a positive communication. And, no, there is a clear difference between the trite, wishy-washy messages and methods of PC and the methods of crucial conversations; the two are not equivalent.

 

[William White]

Yes, well, you cannot have a guarantee of something that will work all the time, but you can try to maximize the odds of having a positive communication. And, no, there is a clear difference between the trite, wishy-washy messages and methods of PC and the methods of crucial conversations; the two are not equivalent.

yes, but one leads to the other - this is not an opinion - it is an observation of what I have seen in my lifetime.

Especially if you are trying NOT to offend the greatest number of people.

what you think is wishy washy, other people think is polite

 

[WWGD]

<Snip>

On the other hand, if people previously thought Reagan might pull the nuclear trigger, what might foreign bad guys think about Trump? Do you think they would [a] try to goad him into a launch, be especially deferential fearing an outburst, or [c] refuse to even meet the guy for fear of being outmaneuvered?
[Sorry for the boldface...can't get rid it.]

Do you want to experiment and find out what they will do? In this area I prefer to stick to what has worked (albeit not that greatly all the time) in this respect, this is not an area in which I like to take risks.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree with your first point, but on the 2nd, if you look at the situation at the right level of generality, there are significant commonalities to people's psychological make up, e.., everyone wants to save face , everyone wants to be heard, etc. You just need to adapt these ideas to the situation at hand in the right way.

But no matter what you do without destroying the message, it won't be successful all the time. And as they say, the squeaky wheel gets mic'd up by the media.

 

[WWGD]

yes, but one leads to the other - this is not an opinion - it is an observation of what I have seen in my lifetime.

Especially if you are trying NOT to offend the greatest number of people.

what you think is wishy washy, other people think is polite

Well, PC , AFAIK, has no actual theoretical basis to support it; in this respect it I mushy and wishy-washy. The other methods do at least have a foundation (which one may disagree with) based on commonalities in human psychology at the "right level of generality". It is a skill, and not an easy one to acquire, and it takes a long time to become really good at it: address actual issues in a way that you do not make the other party defensive, do your best to allow them to save face and keep their dignity intact, etc. This is a general methodology to be adapted to the situation at hand.

 

[WWGD]

But no matter what you do without destroying the message, it won't be successful all the time. And as they say, the squeaky wheel gets mic'd up by the media.

No matter what you do, there is no guarantee on anything working all the time. Your best bet is optimizing. And , yes, we do have a dysfunctional system, which will remain so for a while, and , definitely this has to be taken into account. I don't live in la-la land of make believe.

 

[DiracPool]

On the other hand, if people previously thought Reagan might pull the nuclear trigger, what might foreign bad guys think about Trump? Do you think they would [a] try to goad him into a launch

And this is exactly the reason that Trump will never become president. As "colorful" as he is, most Americans don't want a hot head in the white house, me included. I don't think a summit meeting with Putin or the Chinese premier ending with Trump saying "YOU'RE FIRED," is going to go over very well with the American public.

 

[Finny]

because it is just not necessary to be offensive if you have the right skills (which I don't ).

I'm not advocating this, but when you can get the other person upset, they are thrown off guard. Those who are insecure, maybe personally, maybe because they don't have facts to back up their positions, are especially easy to disarm in such a way.

there ARE ways of being constructive - and it has resulted in political correct behaviour.

I know what you intended here, I think, but I do not see politically correct behavior as constructive. It's basically ridiculous. Politically correct behavior seems to cater to any class of the aggrieved who might be offended even though they hold an untenable position.

Perhaps the greatest: Al Sharpton. Has he interviewed Trump?? THAT would be a hoot. I'd even watch MSNBC or wherever he resides.

the vast majority are the "nice fraud" variety.

so true. so sad. Shame there are so many politicians in politics.

 

[russ_watters]

No matter what you do, there is no guarantee on anything working all the time. Your best bet is optimizing.

Of course, but that's not the point of PC. PC shuts off the message completely, because that IS the one/only way to be 100% sure you won't offend anyone.

And , yes, we do have a dysfunctional system, which will remain so for a while, and , definitely this has to be taken into account. I don't live in la-la land of make believe.

Well, with all do respect, your focus on optimizing the message misses the point, so I'm not sure you recognize the existence of the problem being discussed.

 

[WWGD]

And this is exactly the reason that Trump will never become president. As "colorful" as he is, most Americans don't want a hot head in the white house, me included. I don't think a summit meeting with Putin or the Chinese premier ending with Trump saying "YOU'RE FIRED," is going to go over very well with the American public.

Hopefully people will realize that choosing someone only on the basis that "my enemy's (mainstream) enemy (Trump) is my friend".

 

[WWGD]

Of course, but that's not the point of PC. PC shuts off the message completely, because that IS the one/only way to be 100% sure you won't offend anyone.

Well, with all do respect, your focus on optimizing the message misses the point, so I'm not sure you recognize the existence of the problem being discussed.

Do you mean the prevalence of PC? EDIT :I reallyhave no idea of what you mean here. Have I endorsed
or argued in favor of PC? No, I suggested an alternative to the two extremes, while acknowledging that a full implementation in the short run ( if at all) was not plausible. So please explain what you mean here, because I am pretty confused.

 

[StatGuy2000]

All else being equal though, I'd rather have an honest a-hole than a nice fraud.

First of all, I don't think the word "nice" would apply to many of the Republican presidential candidates -- certainly not to the likes of Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, or Rick Santorum, at any rate.

Second, Donald Trump is certainly an a-hole, but "honest" isn't really accurate -- uninhibited and boorish most definitely, but I still contend (as I have from the beginning) that his entire presidential run is an act of dishonesty since I don't believe that he is seriously interested in becoming president of the US, but is using this run to stoke his ego and resort in the shameless self-promotion that drums up new business for him.

BTW, I completely agree with you that Trump also has no substance as a political candidate.

 

[Dembadon]

Trump is easily provoked into rants, which is perhaps what Kelly was trying to do: poke the lion and see how long it takes before it roars. If Trump can't seem to swallow comments about his hair, I think he's revealing a weakness that opponents should be capitalizing on. Playing the victim card is usually a sign of desperation and/or emotional immaturity.

I prefer a President to display composure and be able to assert themselves with factual counter-arguments that are devoid of histrionic rhetoric or knee-jerk, sweeping insults¹. I find it hard to believe that he actually cares what people think about his hair, in which case the professional and honest response would be, "I really don't care what people think about my hair." If he actually does care about what people say about his hair, then I'm not sure which scenario is worse.

¹ Diplomacy is important, especially with other nations. One doesn't have to be an a-hole to avoid being weak.

 

[Finny]

Good grief...I post a humorous comment about Trump/Reagan being perceived as too volatile...
and look what pops up next...

 

[russ_watters]

Do you mean the prevalence of PC?

I mean the meaning/in practice result of PC; what is required of us. You're saying that if you optimize your language properly, you can say anything. I disagree: I think some subjects are just plain off limits. "All lives matter", for example: not allowed to say it.

 

[WWGD]

I mean the meaning/in practice result of PC; what is required of us. You're saying that if you optimize your language properly, you can say anything. I disagree: I think some subjects are just plain off limits. "All lives matter", for example: not allowed to say it.

No, my claim is that the method I suggest will allow you to address the highest possible number of delicate topics. It was designed with this goal in mind. I can only attest that I have been able to communicate more effectively when I have used it, and I am pretty far from being an expert on the field. So, while you may not be able to address just any topic, you will likely be able to constructively address more with this method than with the two other extremes I don't have any actual data to back this up, but, believe me, I do not live a charmed life in an illusory world; I have been unemployed for a long while, fought with my landlords , etc. Not to cry you a river, just to point out that I am not just quoting a book

 

[russ_watters]

No, my claim is that the method I suggest will allow you to address the highest possible number of delicate topics. It was designed with this goal in mind. I can only attest that I have been able to communicate more effectively when I have used it, and I am pretty far from being an expert on the field. So, while you may not be able to address just any topic, you will likely be able to constructively address more with this method than with the two other extremes...
[Emphasis added]

Fair enough. I get that that's true, but I consider the bolded part to be a really big problem for a society that supposedly values free speech/political discourse.

 

[WWGD]

Fair enough. I get that that's true, but I consider the bolded part to be a really big problem for a society that supposedly values free speech/political discourse.

Totally agree. Hey, we agreed on one thing. And it only took around 500 back-and-forth posts. High five!

 

[William White]

I disagree: I think some subjects are just plain off limits. "All lives matter", for example: not allowed to say it.

well, it should be off limits, if only because it is trite and meaningless platitude.

 

[russ_watters]

well, it should be off limits, if only because it is trite and meaningless platitude.

Whether one agrees or disagrees (and I disagree) that it is a trite and meaningless platitude, no one should be shouted-down and forced to apologize for saying it.

 

[William White]

Whether one agrees or disagrees (and I disagree) that it is a trite and meaningless platitude, no one should be shouted-down and forced to apologize for saying it.

well, you favour the death penalty, so not ALL lives matter; just the ones you think are worthy.

That's why its a platitude. People all around the world are dying in the most horrible circumstances and due to injustice and we don't really care. Their lives don't matter a bit to us. They certainly don't matter if it means an inconvenience in our lives.Nobody should be shouted down for saying something? WHY? If you want freedom to voice something, you got to give freedom to those with a voice that want to shout you down. Its not a one way street.

Forced to apologise. Who is doing the forcing and to whom?

 

[russ_watters]

well, you favour the death penalty, so not ALL lives matter; just the ones you think are worthy.

Well, that's not only not true, but it is also not relevant (a misrepresentation in the opposite direction). That's part of the problem with such PC: people make assumptions about what others think, while shouting them down, instead of listening to what they actually believe.

Nobody should be shouted down for saying something? WHY? If you want freedom to voice something, you got to give freedom to those with a voice that want to shout you down. Its not a one way street.

That is a one-way street, only allowing the one with the loudest voice to speak. That's exactly the problem! It makes discourse impossible!

Forced to apologise. Who is doing the forcing and to whom?

The details of this particular incidents with this slogan are here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...t-disrupted-by-black-lives-matter-protesters/
and here:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/politics/bernie-sanders-netroots-nation-black-lives-matter/

 

[Evo]

We've gone WAAAY off topic here, let's get back to discussing Trump, or is this thread over? I can split off all of the off topic posts into a free for all thread if you want.

 

[WWGD]

Let's try to be an example and

well, you favour the death penalty, so not ALL lives matter; just the ones you think are worthy.

That's why its a platitude. People all around the world are dying in the most horrible circumstances and due to injustice and we don't really care. Their lives don't matter a bit to us. They certainly don't matter if it means an inconvenience in our lives.Nobody should be shouted down for saying something? WHY? If you want freedom to voice something, you got to give freedom to those with a voice that want to shout you down. Its not a one way street.

Forced to apologise. Who is doing the forcing and to whom?

Still, if you want to go beyond getting things out of your system, find a way of optimizing the odds of the other party listening to you. Believe me, I am no saint and I feel
like insulting plenty of people, and have done so. But at some point it comes down to deciding whether you just want to vent out or if you want to find a way of communicating constructively with those you disagree with, which may feel about your beliefs the same way you do about theirs. So, what does you getting angry and your ideological opponents getting angry get you? You both raise your guards and refuse to even consider the other's view. So, do you want the comfort of being right , trashing your opponents and having the problem persist, or do you want to find a way to talk while maintaining your dignity , which will give you , while not a guarantee of results, a higher probability of finding solutions than just fighting your opponents.

Again, I am not preaching, I feel the same way you do, but ultimately you (same goes for me ) whether we want to vent out or we want to find a solution.