posted ago by acasper ago by acasper +3 / -0

I am seeing a lot of conversation about what we are against. This is important dialogue but the heart of a movement is always in what it stands for. If we allow what we are against to define us they live in our heads rent free. What do we stand FOR?

Comments (12)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
0
mynewhat 0 points ago +1 / -1

Yes Trump was divisive, but what actually made him divisive?

Here are individual tweets from Trump, no media translating or interfering:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DknGZs6WsAA16Gq.jpg

https://c.files.bbci.co.uk/8D06/production/_91220163_453f96c2-724e-4dfa-9653-73deb8c3ea55.png

https://static.politico.com/6e/c8/c81da1e744cca36005fc0b094f29/150911-trump-tweet-screenshot-1160.jpg

https://i.insider.com/59dd308092406c2a008b5965?width=750&format=jpeg&auto=webp

Before we go down the other routes, I'm curious if you could read these and still come away feeling that Trump's behavior wasn't the divisive element in play here and still pin it on the "media." Because I think that's a really easy out for people to not own up to the fact that he's a pretty despicable person in general.

1
acasper [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

I looked at all of them. He said those things. I don’t have a problem with him saying any of them. I also noticed that only the first image includes tweets from during his presidency. How about you answer my questions now. This is a dialogue after all and I feel like you’re trying to “deradicalize” using the Socratic Method. You’re doing it wrong though. Argumentation is a collaborative exercise. Implicit in argumentation is a questioning of your own pre-suppositions. I again question your motives and call you out for not arguing a position in good faith but instead arguing against your own construct while trying to prove your hypothesis with manipulative tactics as opposed to attempting to disprove it.