language & its impact- how trump answers a question

[Vaishnavi]

don't know if this is posted already but I like how language plays a role on a subconscious level for all of us, and how the language a man uses talks about him

 

[Vaishnavi]

this too

[Hansu]

For a long time I have been pondering on how different groups of people use language in vastly different ways. I pondered whether this changes how we see the world?

Like the word "racist" has a huge difference when it comes from a blue farmer, orange business man or from a green activist. Words simply dont mean one thing in the world anymore, I think that is causing friction between groups when they discuss politics, and the reason is that they barely understand the language the other is using.

When I accepted the stage green definition of the world racism, it helped me to understand the green ideas of racial problems in our modern society. I then realized that I didnt learn anything, all I did was accepting the new definition for racism and suddenly I became open to so much information in my brain that was related to that word, which I didnt want to believe in for whatever reason.

I've been thinking about learning these different meanings among different groups and learning how to focus one's mind to speak and listen in any of these groups point of view. They all have so similiar but different languages of english. Maybe one could better understand different political parties if their mind didnt place different meaning on words than what the representative is trying to say? Its not like words are going to have one single meaning despite the fact it would be so much easier, but we could try being more lingually flexible.

Edited November 28, 2019 by Hansu

[outlandish]

That's a pretty good point @Hansu, good food for thought. I don't think it's a new problem though, I think this is a core issue with language and communication; different parties will always have different connotations, associations, even definitions for words and phrases, since the dawn of language probably. And the context really matters too. It's pretty crazy to think about how much miscommunication is going on all the time. 

This underlines the importance of really being clear on your definitions when getting into a serious discussion.

[Forestluv]

@Vaishnavi I noticed one thing Trump does that was not covered in the video. In regards to Trump’s Muslim ban, Kimmel first asks, “But isn’t it un-American and wrong to discriminate based on someone’s religion”? The question of what is”American and Un-American” gets to the heart of Trumpism. As Trump is about to define “the problem”, the audience applauds in support of Kimmel - that it is un-American and wrong to discriminate based on religion. Trump picks up on this and intuitively knows he needs to throw out some cover and respond “I mean. . . Look, I’m for it”. He often uses the phrase “Look. .  “ To suggest there is something we cannot see. In this case “Look, I’m for it” alters that narrative that Trump is discriminatory. In other words: “Look, I’m for non-discrimination in religion, but the problem is. . . “. Then Trump goes on repeating the word “problem” and the problem is death and injury. Yet notice how he doesn’t bring up religion or Muslim. He uses generic terms like “people” to mask the underlying discrimination. For example, he says “People are coming into the country looking to do tremendous harm”. He doesn’t say Muslim people. He just s says “people”. This gives the appearance of being non-discriminatory: “I just want to stop the people who want to cause harm - race or religion doesn’t matter”. This is the cover Trump uses. Trump does not have a “people ban” or “any person that harms us ban” - it is a Muslim people ban. And Trump followers know when he says “people” or “they”, he means Muslim people. . . Trump also does this with black and latinx people as cover for racism. 

The first part of Trump’s manipulation is to define the narrative as being non-discriminatory and just trying to protect Americans from harm. He then has a transitory manipulation step. Before Kimmel can question/challenge Trump on his view, Trump immediately cites all the significant people that agree with him and call to congratulate him. So now, someone that disagrees with Trump is un-American and is odd. It was now too late for Kimmel to address the first manipulation, and he took a swipe at Trump’s second manipulation by saying “They were probably crank callers”. Trump did not like this response, because it undercut his second tactic.

As interviewers have wised up, they have challenged Trump’s tactics. Trump doesn’t like this, so has discontinued press briefings and has manipulated the environment when he interacts with press. For example, nearly all of his contact with the press in “chopper talk”. Trump stands besides an active helicopter making lots of noise. This gives the appearance Trump is very important and is off to some urgent important work. It also weakens press challenges. A reporter may shout out “When you say ‘people’ are you referring to Muslim people?’”. With all the noise of the helicopter, Trump can pretend like he couldn’t hear the whole question and can shout back  “What I said was that people enter the country wanting to cause harm”. The reporter is trying to shout back “No, that’s not what I’m asking. I’m asking if. . . “. In all the noise and chaos, Trump can pretend like he can’t hear the reporter and say “Next, question please”. . . The helicopter noise environment gives Trump  cover to avoid and evade questions - yet it doesn’t look like he is rude or trying to evade questions. If he did the press briefing in a quiet room, it would be totally obvious. When he does interviews with international leaders, he os occasionally asked challenging questions. Trump can’t pretend he didn’t hear the question and usually gets angry and confrontational.

@Hansu I think you make a super important points about relative meaning of terms in conversation. Yet in the context of the first video, Trump’s core terms of “problem”, “injury” , “harm” and “death” are being used with standard meaning nearly everyone agrees with (If someone can into a neighborhood killing people, all the neighbors would agree it is “harmful” and a “problem”. Here, it’s not so much the literal meaning Trump gives to these terms, it is how the terms are used. 

[Vaishnavi]

On 29/11/2019 at 0:16 AM, outlandish said:

This underlines the importance of really being clear on your definitions when getting into a serious discussion.

and ensuring everyone's on the same page (in terms of understanding); gives better context 

On 29/11/2019 at 0:35 AM, Serotoninluv said:

“I just want to stop the people who want to cause harm - race or religion doesn’t matter”. This is the cover Trump uses. Trump does not have a “people ban” or “any person that harms us ban” - it is a Muslim people ban. And Trump followers know when he says “people” or “they”, he means Muslim people

its like the elephant in the room, everyone knows about it and yet they play otherwise. This is a very common narrative followed by most politicians and celebrities and is a necessary tool if you have to maintain a certain persona

On 29/11/2019 at 0:35 AM, Serotoninluv said:

nearly all of his contact with the press in “chopper talk”. Trump stands besides an active helicopter making lots of noise. This gives the appearance Trump is very important and is off to some urgent important work. It also weakens press challenges. A reporter may shout out “When you say ‘people’ are you referring to Muslim people?’”. With all the noise of the helicopter, Trump can pretend like he couldn’t hear the whole question

this is gold! it's almost awe inspiring, the amount of energy they invest in coming up with something like this (and honestly believing that they're doing good for the world)

[Zega]

@Serotoninluv The non discriminatory speech is a great point. Not only does using broad words like "people" deflect the question, or rather the implications of the question, it allows his supporters to draw their own conclusions. He can use this speech with racist, homophobic, etc. Members in the audience without ever needing to directly appeal to them with hateful language. 

I've also noticed the chopper talk as well. It definitely makes him seem like he's too busy to do a long interview, not too different from the "I can't stay long" technique in pickup. 

[Forestluv]

56 minutes ago, Zega said:

The non discriminatory speech is a great point. Not only does using broad words like "people" deflect the question, or rather the implications of the question, it allows his supporters to draw their own conclusions. He can use this speech with racist, homophobic, etc. Members in the audience without ever needing to directly appeal to them with hateful language. 

Yep. And it gives cover to backtrack.

In reference to Mexico and Central America, Trump said

“We have people coming into the country or trying to come in, we're stopping a lot of them, but we're taking people out of the country. You wouldn't believe how bad these people are. These aren't people. These are animals."

Again, he uses a non-discriminatory word "people" and even de-humanizes these "people". His supporters know he is referring to Mexicans and Central Americans. When pressed, Trump supporters can say "He didn't say all Mexicans and Central Americans are bad animals". . . The derogatory message is harmful, yet I think what is omitted is equally as harmful. Trump omits the part that crime rates for immigrants are no higher than U.S. citizens. Trump omits the part that the vast majority of people at the border are desperate asylum seekers from horrific conditions. These are people that are willing to work hard and want to give their children a good life. Rather, Trump portrays the 5% of violent immigrants to be representive 95% of immigrants. He needs to do this to stoke up fear and tribalism in his supporters. Trump could easily set the record straight. He could clearly state that only a small percentage of immigrants have bad intentions and the majority are desperate asylum seekers. Yet he doesn't because it would blow up his whole narrative.