Understanding Trump's Use of Language

[Steve3007]

It is unlikely that anything we say will free him of this prejudice...

And I don't think he will ever follow William F. Buckley's example and meet, face-to-face, the people who suffer as a result of abuse like his. He's said as much himself. So they will always remain, to him, a threatening, faceless de-humanized bloc. He will never see them as real individual people.

I do not know the extent to which Dachshund is blinded by his hatred. It may be that there is an element of sport here - him wanting to show how clever he is by making what he thinks are good arguments he hopes others will be bothered by but will be unable to refute. The repeated failure of such attempts has led to a predictable pattern - shout and retreat.

Or the sport may simply be to watch with amusement for outraged reactions - i.e. trolling. This was what I assumed him to be doing when he first came here and proposed such things as the removal of voting rights from groups who don't share his own political views and the labeling of religious minorities that he dislikes with armbands, as Jews were labelled in 1930s Germany. It took a while to accept that he might actually seriously hold the views expressed here. Although I doubt that he expresses them openly to "real" people in his "real" everyday life. Anonymity and unaccountability can bring out some pretty dark parts of human nature.

It would be a comic twist if some day his daughter were to take a Black lesbian lover...

An incidental point: If his words about his personal life here are to be believed he actually has a grown-up son, not a daughter. But the questions still apply. Given his crazed, misogynistic screaming about promiscuous "bitches" with coloured hair, god knows how he'd treat a daughter once she became a rebellious teenager.

[Sy Borg]

For sure. There is a growing culture of left baiting. After all, the greatest of all left baiters is running the second most powerful nation in the world, and his influence has flowed through to the public.

Based on language and tone of some people on forums I've encountered in recent years, it seems as if some good old boys in baseball caps like to think they are channelling the master baiter, just as I used try to channel Ringo and Bernard Purdie on the drums.

[Steve3007]

...just as I used try to channel Ringo and Bernard Purdie on the drums.

Did you manage it? Ringo wasn't really known as the greatest drummer in the world was he? According to John Lennon he wasn't even the greatest drummer in the Beatles. Although I'm no expert.

---

Anyway, since people like Dachshund are presumably never going to change, perhaps the radical possibility ought to be considered that Dachshunds and normal people are simply different and that they build different kinds of societies. Perhaps we should consider the possibility that only moderate liberals would make the United States/United Kingdom/Australia the kinds of countries that we would want to pass on to our children.

Maybe we should consider ridding our countries of this useless and pernicious, if not dangerous, portion of the population. Perhaps his presence really should be regarded as "not conducive to the public good" and that we cannot, equally free, live in the same government.

Or perhaps I'll just accept that people like him exist and get on with life.

[Dachshund]

Steve:

Dachshund, it seems, is following a long tradition.

I do not know if William F. Buckley counts as one of Dachshund’s "capital C traditional Conservatives", but Buckley was able to overcome his prejudices against Blacks and went from being an opponent of civil rights to a defender. There are two things he mentions that changed his mind. One, he came to find the arguments of his conservative friends convincing, and the other is what he witnessed of the treatment of Blacks. I think the latter may have been more convincing than the former. He was moved by witnessing first hand how badly they were being treated by the people who claimed moral superiority.

I have no respect for William F Buckley, the so-called "Father of American Conservatism, because he was a weak-willed and duplicitous individual; a man who was never really quite sure what exactly the fundamental principles of his his own political philosophy actually were.

His defense of the American Civil Rights movement in the 1960s is a perfect case in point. In 1957, Buckley wrote an editorial in the National Review ( the right-leaning Magazine that he founded) entitled, " Why the South Must Prevail". In this piece Buckley cited "the cultural superiority of white over Negro" in explaining why Whites were "entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where they do not predominate numerically".

When Buckley appeared on NPR's "Fresh Air" program in 1989, he stood by the passage. When NPR host Terry Gross read it back to him, Buckley said (quote): "Well I think that's absolutely correct." The interview was re-broadcast in February of 2008.

And I think this says it all.

Note, however, that (to his credit) Buckley was, from the early 1960s through to the Reagan era in the 80s, consistent in his outspoken support for the Apartheid regime in South Africa. Buckley basically believed that the South African Blacks were an "inferior" people (race), possessed of "savage tendencies", who would , he argued, never be capable of competently governing themselves in a post-apartheid South Africa. He was correct, of course, and South Africa today, - (as we are all painfully aware) - has, under the rule of the Black-majority ANC become dreadful a crime-ridden, rape and murder capital of the world. Political corruption is endemic, Whites ( and in particular White farmers) have become an openly persecuted minority who live daily in fear of their lives, the economy is in desperate trouble , and so on. To put it bluntly, South Africa has, since, White minority rule ended in 1994, and political power was transferred to the Black majority, become just another third world ,African "**** Hole".

Funny how the leftist media in the West never mention any of this. So long as its a White-genocide that's going down, that's something they feel the public in the Anglosphere don't really need to know about. Isn't that right Fool?

Regards


Dachshund

[Dachshund]

Based on language and tone of some people on forums I've encountered in recent years, it seems as if some good old boys in baseball caps like to think they are channelling the master baiter, just as I used try to channel Ringo and Bernard Purdie on the drums.

Any drummer trying to "channel Ringo" would not be what you'd call the sharpest tool in the musical kit, Greta, because every man and his dog knows that Ringo's drumming was always third rate at the very best.You silly SQUIRREL-BRAINED woman !!!

Regards

Dachshund

[Eduk]

every man and his dog knows that Ringo's drumming was always third rate

How do you know that?

[Dachshund]

How do you know that?

Erm, Eduk...has anyone ever told you that you're a major DORKENHEIMER ?

Regards

Dachshund

[Eduk]

Just pointing out even more unjustified beliefs, as if you didn't already have enough.

[Dachshund]

No, you are not pointing out an unjustified belief. You are just confirming that you are an ignorant little twit.

Regards

Dachshund

[Eduk]

Ah I see what you did there, you counter a claim of unjustified beliefs with an unjustified belief, very meta

[Fooloso4]

Dachshund:

I have no respect for William F Buckley, the so-called "Father of American Conservatism, because he was a weak-willed and duplicitous individual, a man who was never really quite sure what exactly the fundamental principles of his his own political philosophy actually were.

One thing that Buckley was capable of that you have demonstrated that you are not is subtlety and nuance. We have seen this time and again as you struggled to understand your hero, Edmund Burke, grasping hold of statements taken out of context and making up the rest.

When Buckley appeared on NPR's "Fresh Air" program in 1989, he stood by the passage. When NPR host Terry Gross read it back to him, Buckley said (quote): "Well I think that's absolutely correct." The interview was re-broadcast in February of 2008.

From that interview:

4:27: Jim Crow was a misuse of Constitutional privilege

4:34: Objected to those who said forget the Constitution and correct the abuses.

5:00: I’m rather glad we lost that fight

5:50: You shouldn’t vote unless you are literate

6:00 The south was neglecting the education of black people.

6:15: Contributed to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. If you want to advance colored people you must acknowledge that at that time they were not at that time as advanced. They suffered certain disqualifications we all deplore.

“Cultural superiority” is something that can be addressed through such things as education and economic progress. It was this, lack of education and economic progress, that Buckley cited in his National Review editorial, and which is exactly what he was attempting to rectify with his support of the NAACP.

When Buckley ran for mayor of New York in 1965 he published an article in the National Review that contained the following:

The ill-feeling that exists between the races in New York is due in part to a legacy of discrimination and injustice committed by the dominant ethnic groups. The white people owe a debt to the Negro people against whom we have discriminated for generations. That debt we rightly struggle to discharge in various ways, some of them wiser than others, and we should continue to seek out ways to advance the Negro, and other victims of oppression explicit and implicit, by sounder means than undifferentiated infusions of politically deployed cash.

From an article entitled “How William F. Buckley, Jr., Changed His Mind on Civil Rights”

When the conservative editor and intellectual William F. Buckley, Jr., ran for mayor of New York in 1965, he may have been the first conservative to endorse affirmative action, or, as he called it, “the kind of special treatment [of African Americans] that might make up for centuries of oppression.” He also promised to crack down on labor unions that discriminated against minorities, a cause even his liberal opponents were unwilling to embrace. Buckley pointed out the inherent unfairness in the administration of drug laws and in judicial sentencing. He also advanced a welfare “reform” plan whose major components were job training, education and daycare.
(https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... hts-215129)

From an interview with Judy Woodruff in 2006:

MS. WOODRUFF: Do you have any major regrets along the way about positions that you espoused or people you championed?
MR. BUCKLEY: I think we made a mistake in 1962 in opposing the Civil Rights Act. There were two or three acts that—The one that was opposed by Goldwater, who in the matter, by the way, was constitutionally advised by a man who 10 years later was Chief Justice of the United States.
MS. WOODRUFF: William Rehnquist.
MR. BUCKLEY: On the Civil Rights bill. And we were persuaded that was correct. I regret it. I think that the impact of that bill should have been welcomed by us. And that sort of transcended what would have become a constitutional formalism.
I’m also sad that there wasn’t as much of an evolution in libertarian policies as I’d have liked to have seen. It’s simply accepted by everyone, including workaday conservatives, that education and health are substantially statist enterprises. I regret this. I think it was a surrender in principle and an abandonment of ideas that might have profited the republic hugely.

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/ ... sh_will_be

Dachshund:

Buckley basically believed that the South African Blacks were an "inferior" people (race), possessed of "savage tendencies", who would , he argued, never be capable of competently governing themselves in a post-apartheid South Africa

Where does he say this? What reasons did he give for this claim (if he did in fact claim this)? Just pointing to his support of the Apartheid regime is not sufficient. Or do you think that claiming what you claim he "basically believed" saves you from citing what he actually said?

Funny how the leftist media in the West never mention any of this.

Funny how you make factual claims without any basis in fact. Have you actually done a search to confirm your claim?

Do you include the “failed New York Times” as leftist media? The following article is from September 30th that I found just by searching New York Times Apartheid. It is the first thing that popped up. Try it with what you consider to be the top leftist media sites.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/worl ... lings.html

[Sy Borg]

Based on language and tone of some people on forums I've encountered in recent years, it seems as if some good old boys in baseball caps like to think they are channelling the master baiter, just as I used try to channel Ringo and Bernard Purdie on the drums.

:D :D :D Any drummer trying to "channel Ringo" would not be what you'd call the sharpest tool in the musical kit, Greta, because every man and his dog knows that Ringo's drumming was always third rate at the very best.You silly SQUIRREL-BRAINED woman !!!

Regards

Dachshund

This is a good example of someone making things up without the slightest knowledge of a field, simply based on popular rumour. Trump does this all the time - he always knows best, even when he knows nothing.

Ringo is actually hugely respected by many top pros for his taste, style and feel. He is an inspiration and an popular "channelling" player because he shows how to play simply and still help songs sound sensational. The value of a drummer is not in how many notes they can cram into a bar but in good time, taste and musical sensibilities.

https://www.moderndrummer.com/article/j ... ngo-starr/

[Sy Borg]

...just as I used try to channel Ringo and Bernard Purdie on the drums.

Did you manage it? Ringo wasn't really known as the greatest drummer in the world was he? According to John Lennon he wasn't even the greatest drummer in the Beatles. Although I'm no expert.

Steve, that quote of John Lennon's has entered legend but it was only a joke. You know what John L was like.

BTW Dachshund, Steve's reply is how you get to ask exactly the same questions - nothing PC there - but with a level of rational humility that doesn't leave the questioner looking like a foolish blowhard. Watch how Steve operates and you might learn how to be a more grounded and classy human being. Don't watch me - I'm also a ratbag, alas, but I at least try to learn from those wiser than I am.

Anyway, since people like Dachshund are presumably never going to change, perhaps the radical possibility ought to be considered that Dachshunds and normal people are simply different and that they build different kinds of societies. Perhaps we should consider the possibility that only moderate liberals would make the United States/United Kingdom/Australia the kinds of countries that we would want to pass on to our children.

... Or perhaps I'll just accept that people like him exist and get on with life.

Yes, the last. Always the last (aside from dangerous psychopaths in prison who terrorise other inmates - the worst of the worst).

I think that destructive people (at least within bounds) are probably necessary as entropic balancers. You need the nasties to promote enough entropy to keep things developing, and not just to make stories and movies interesting. If everyone was reasonable then it's easy to imagine stagnation and complacency setting in. I see it as nature's balancing between growth and decay, Brahma and Shiva, according to the Hindus' anthropomorphisms. The bad stuff we have to endure, at this stage of our development.

Not all boats are lifted at once, so to speak, and some oats aren't going to lift at all in this new world. Progress is inconsistent; there's still much chaos involved, again, at this stage of our development.

Maybe we should consider ridding our countries of this useless and pernicious, if not dangerous, portion of the population. Perhaps his presence really should be regarded as "not conducive to the public good" and that we cannot, equally free, live in the same government.

Not sure how things are going to go. Once people divided themselves geographically. Now it seems two poles of ideology are emerging in all places where free thought is allowed. The neo-fascist movement represented by Trump, Xi and Putin at the top end and the Dachshunds of this world at the bottom seems to be hungry for more order and control with authoritarian power structures that brook no debate or argument. It's as though half the world is pining for a strong all-knowing Daddy to take control because the world is starting to look scary and they are confused.

[Eduk]

Greta I haven't looked into it properly but as I understand it the joke about Ringo not being the best drummer in the Beatles is a Jasper Carrot joke and nothing to do with Lennon.

[Steve3007]

Steve, that quote of John Lennon's has entered legend but it was only a joke. You know what John L was like.

Yes! After writing it, and thinking I was being very funny in repeating it, I discovered that it is an extremely well-worn tired old joke and that, according to what I read in an article about it, John never actually said it, apparently. And the article then went on to say why Ringo was actually a very good drummer. So, if we can't solve any philosophical problems here, at least we can establish whether Ringo was a good drummer. Maybe. I haven't checked out the skills of Bernard Purdle yet.

BTW Dachshund, Steve's reply is how you get to ask exactly the same questions - nothing PC there - but with a level of rational humility that doesn't leave the questioner looking like a foolish blowhard. Watch how Steve operates and you might learn how to be a more grounded and classy human being. Don't watch me - I'm also a ratbag, alas, but I at least try to learn from those wiser than I am.

Thank you. Although I can blow reasonably hard if called upon to do so.

Yes, the last. Always the last (aside from dangerous psychopaths in prison who terrorise other inmates - the worst of the worst)...

Yes. My comment was really supposed to be a parody of what Dachshund said in another topic about how, in his view, only pure blooded white folks, unadulterated with the genes of inferior foul smelling sub-human animals, can build societies that we would want to pass on to our children.

Not sure how things are going to go. Once people divided themselves geographically. Now it seems two poles of ideology are emerging in all places where free thought is allowed. The neo-fascist movement represented by Trump, Xi and Putin at the top end and the Dachshunds of this world at the bottom seems to be hungry for more order and control with authoritarian power structures that brook no debate or argument. It's as though half the world is pining for a strong all-knowing Daddy to take control because the world is starting to look scary and they are confused.

As we know, this yearning for an aggressive, uncompromising strongman who creates jobs, builds good roads, given everyone a common enemy to hate and fear and whose darker side can therefore be tolerated, happens over and over again. Often as a reaction to a leader or government who is perceived to be a ditherer.


Anyway, now that Ivanka Trump has been found to have also used a personal email address for government business, perhaps the Democrats should borrow some of Trump's language.

Lock her up! Lock her up!

They can all just wrestle around in the gutter together.