Stephen Miller, Trump advisor, absolutely loses his mind when journalist José María Del Pino asks him where he gets his information about Venezuela’s supposed low crimes rates.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Okay, here is the entire paragraph. Please point out what I am missing:

    I don’t know what you guys are seeing, but it is quite clear that Trump’s guy won this exchange. It was probably the best result he could expect. And that is before the interview became viral and millions upon millions got to hear his whole speech delivered. The journalist is well intentioned, but the result is catastrophic.

    • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      The rest of the paragraph?

      It was probably the best result he could expect. And that is before the interview became viral and millions upon millions got to hear his whole speech delivered. The journalist is well intentioned, but the result is catastrophic.

      Replace the word “won” with “got what he wanted from”

      I don’t know what you guys are seeing, but it is quite clear that Trump’s guy won got what he wanted from this exchange. It was probably the best result he could expect. And that is before the interview became viral and millions upon millions got to hear his whole speech delivered. The journalist is well intentioned, but the result is catastrophic.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            My definition of it being “quite clear” that he “won” in this case is that everyone agrees. We do not all agree.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                That would highly depend on the journalist’s audience and their intent in asking the question. Considering he was Venezuelan and representing a Spanish-language outlet, I’m guessing he wanted it on record that Trump was making shit up about Venezuela.

                It is good to have these things on record, isn’t it?

    • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      The rest of the paragraph makes it clear the writer is speaking from how donald’s advisor (and sycophants) see it. ie:

      the best result he could expect.

      Not ‘only valid’, not ‘we’. It is not absolute proof, but, if you consider yourself a rational arguer then it is your duty to interpret statements in the best light possible.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Or “the best result” being that he is the “clear” winner.

        it is your duty to interpret statements in the best light possible.

        Does that include statements like “they’re eating the dogs in Springfield” and “schools are forcing children to have gender reassignment surgery?”

        How about “she became black?”

        • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Technically yes, you should evaluate those statements in the best light possible with the intention of rebutting with a valid counter-argument that results in a rational conclusion. Absurd declarations are typically the easiest to do so.

          In your examples even the moderators evaluated it in their best light. They didn’t jump to declaring donald “the dumbest person alive” and/or “pro-immigrant executions” (although I would have found it hilariously entertaining). They simply said “here is our evidence disproving that claim”, and that is more than enough.

          Back to the point of this discussion, you’re jumping to Ad Hominems instead of evaluating their good argument: That the ‘still(?!) undecideds’ will probably not agree with the interpretation that the journalist won because they’re idiots.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            What ad hominems did I make to the OP? Please quote me.

            Also, I’m sorry, the “best possible light” interpretation of “she became black” is that it isn’t racist. It’s racist. Not considering it racist is pretty fucking disgusting.

            • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              You’ve edited the first comment I replied to so I cannot quote you.

              Also, I’m sorry, the “best possible light” interpretation of “she became black” is that it isn’t racist. It’s racist. Not considering it racist is pretty fucking disgusting.

              This is an ad hominem though, as you’re attacking the arguer’s morals instead of employing a proper argument.

              As for the example “she became black”, in the context it was uttered Trump is arguing in his frenetic junk speech, that Kamala was using her mixed race to her advantage and gave examples where she appealed to her Indian or Black heritage distinctly due to the context in an attempt to manipulate that core audience. He makes no value judgments on those races or uses it to belittle them (as far as I can recall), which detracts from the racism accusation (although, obviously he is but I can’t be bothered to dredge up all that BS). He is simply saying: “she’s blatantly pandering”. An argument that I begrudgingly agree with (I hate that I do trust me).

              That said, while his argument is sound, I am unconvinced because I don’t blame her for pandering to people that share her heritage. If I could I would be too in her shoes, and frankly the obvious counter of “Trump also panders to those that share his heritage (white incels)” is unnecessary but implied in her rolling of eyes / mocking facial expressions.

              Edit: Indian and Black -> Indian or Black

                • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  (although, obviously he is but I can’t be bothered to dredge up all that BS)

                  I clearly agree with you. The point is that his argument “Kamala is abusing her mixed heritage to pander to those audiences” is the best way to interpret the argument to come to rational conclusions.

                  In my counter-argument I simply state the premises: The candidates job is to win (implied), both candidates are pandering to their heritage, and accusations of pandering are an unpersuasive form criticism as it is expected from rational voters. Therefore, I do not find his complaint that her pandering is unfair, abusive or even remotely persuasive to vote for him instead.

                  If you want to pile on a rhetorical argument that he is racist and shouldn’t be voted for you’d be preaching to the choir, but as you can see accusing your arguer of being racist is both irrelevant and counter-productive to coming to the same conclusion in the end.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    No it isn’t. The best way to interpret that argument to come to the rational conclusion is to interpret is AS RACIST.

                    Jesus Christ you are bending over backward to not make an obviously racist comment, which he has since repeated after being called out on the racism, is not racist. He literally did it at the debate. There is nothing irrelevant or counter-productive about saying what is true.

                    And if you agree that he is a racist, I have no idea why you are being so charitable to the extremely racist thing he keeps repeating.