this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
585 points (98.2% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2502 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The notion that Americans should dial down their incendiary rhetoric is undeniable, but that message cannot be delivered credibly by the person who literally sent a mob to the US Capitol, and then sat back and cheered the thugs who assaulted cops for three hours.

The plea to ease up on hate speech cannot be made by the guy who invented a patois of political violence, who prods supporters to assault hecklers, threatens to shoot undocumented immigrants and looters, jeers the husband of a rival who was assaulted with a hammer, and refers to opposition as “vermin.”

And the idea that the toxic talk has gone too far sounds hollow coming from a demagogue who thinks Hillary Clinton’s fate might best be settled by “Second Amendment people,” that Liz Cheney should be sent before a military tribunal, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Mark Milley, should be executed.

This is the political atmosphere that Donald Trump has nurtured, so when he whines about how “the rhetoric of Biden and Harris” has inspired two troubled people (both likely Republicans) to shoot at him with assault rifles, it can be dismissed as one of the most pitiful attempts at gaslighting from a deranged felon who has made a career of it.


🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/

all 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 61 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Many of his supporters do not want democracy. They want minority rule, whether that’s through an ethno-state or a homogenous ideological state of some other kind. They have glamorous fantasies that somehow they are part of the in-crowd that will enjoy a privileged position in an authoritarian regime.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Do most of them even know what an “authoritarian regime” is? They might be pretty surprised to find out what that actually looks like.

[–] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago

Surely the leopards won't eat my face!

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Probably a lot of winning and Jesus?

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 19 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So this guy says things like what outlined here:

But Donald Trump, on his social-media network, Truth Social, wrote that Mark Milley’s phone call to reassure China in the aftermath of the storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021, was “an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH.”

and people react with hey that is a threat to democracy and they whine us pointing out the threat to democracy is rhetoric. Its not rhetoric when its based on actual things. Whats funny is the assasination attempts both seem to be voters of his from 2016 and just before that we got one of those convicted from the riots who showed anger because they left them hanging in the wind. Seems to me all the anger they have bread into the folks they weaponized is coming back to bite them.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Wasn’t the kid in PA too young to vote in 2016?

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 2 points 2 months ago

Yeah sorry was just resgistered as a republican but too young for the first trump election.

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

When they use their judges to steal this election (as they are currently planning to do), what will normal people do? Anything?

[–] ech@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago (7 children)

Is everybody else using 'rhetoric' wrong or am I the one off base? Afaik, it just means 'speech', or maybe 'eloquence' in certain contexts, but I've never seen it used to mean 'lie' until jd opened his mouth and everybody else followed along.

[–] JamesStallion@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 months ago

Thus is a holdover from half remembered lessons on Plato I guess. Socrates is contrasted with the rhetoricians as seeking Truth, a noumenal thing beyond us that we discover (or recall as Socrates would put it). The rhetoricians representative Gorgias has his argument famously summed up as "man is the measure of all things", that is to say that nothing is either good or bad but thinking makes it so.

Rhetoricians famously taught people how to convince others of their point of view, essentially modern debate technique. Socrates undermined this practice by pointing out that the skills employed (tone of voice, rhythm, eloquence) had nothing to do with determining truth.

With this argument in mind we can see why "rhetoric" is now used as a shorthand for emotional appeals, or style over substance. Rhetoric is what you rely on when you cannot make a structured and logical argument, while in theory the truth is the truth even if delivered in a dull monotone of limited vocabulary.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I agree with you. However, if one wanted to make the argument - I suppose you could say they're using in the second sense as defined by Websters:

2a

skill in the effective use of speech

b

a type or mode of language or speech

TFW "mode of speech" is "lies like a cheap rug"

[–] ech@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

Using the second definition, I'd still clarify as "false rhetoric" or something. Maybe that's just me shrug

[–] nickhammes@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

I don't think it's being used as "lie" here, so much as "and I'm not just saying that, I really mean it". Rhetoric being used like speech in the sense that it's something that can be true or false vs something necessarily false

[–] Capricorn_Geriatric@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Rhetoric does mean speech. It's usually used in a political context, so incediary rhetoric would be incidiary (political) speech.

Other than that, rhetoric is often equated with the policies talked about, so Trump's rhetoric would be anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, pro-Russia, etc.

As for the 'it's not rhetoric' part of the title - I think they meant it's not just speech, it's verifiable - so no direct meaning of 'lie' anywhere although the meaning of 'lie' is heavily implied.

[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

When it's seldom used in my language, 'rhetoric' acts as a sum of similar opinions, talking points etc in a negative way, as holding no water or consisting of trickery and strawmen. One can say liberal rhetoric, partisan rhetoric, prehistoric rhetoric, whatever - it's a reference to a part of an existing discourse.

There author implies that it's not just words from a part of the audience with some possible exaggeration, it's all facts.

[–] Awesomo85@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 months ago

I have to assume you learned the literal definition of rhetoric because you attended at least one higher level education course. (Just to be clear: I am complimenting your understanding of the fact that words have meaning).

Most people absolutely use the word "rhetoric" to mean "lie", or more frequently: "a pathos that directly contrasts my own".

It has basically been forced into a completely different meaning as part of the lexicon of internet speech.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Hilarious that the thumbnail contains a Dollar General sign. It's obviously not part of the collection of crap in front of it, but just couldn't be more fitting from a stereotypical point of view.

[–] A7thStone@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I know where that picture is from. It's a small town in northern NY, and the people there are exactly how you think they are.

[–] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Trump is a useful idiot. The real threat to democracy is the Heritage Society, Project 2025, and the christofascists using Trump to gain power. They telegraphed their intentions when they said that the democrats were only electing Biden and Harris so they could kill off Biden and install Harris. I guarantee that their plan is to get Trump elected, kill him and Vance, and install the christofascist speaker of the house president.

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The news source of this post could not be identified. Please check the source yourself. Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

Does NJ stand for New Jersey or what? I clicked a couple of buttons and they are just NJ everywhere.

[–] systemglitch@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

What democracy?

[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago