Trump Supporter Kidnapped, Tortured for 2 Days.

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
21

All evidence overwhelming points to this bring a case of clear and evident torture, bona fide hate crime. By default.

Further, linking Trump, bring forced to denounce Trump us likewise a bad sign.

Mowk has no further case here, he has be absolutely refuted beyond reasonable argument.

Same for Carleas. The bulk of the claims for hate attacks were by minorities initially, but likewise so have the proven hoaxes, especially for the real cases that made national news. Only cases I’ve seen of actual violence have been Democrats attacking.

In Europe, this mindset tends to be illegal, it’s called Holocaust Denial. That’s a specific case of the overall mindset, but applies here too, you have nasty, politically motivated atrocities perpetrated by the left, and they likewise have a list of claims of being attacked shown to be hoaxes.

It’s all very one sided right now, and apologists high (carleas) and low (mowk) are here trying to discredit the obvious.

  1. it’s not Trump supporters burning down churches, pulling people out of cars and beating them, torturing mentally handicapped people in revenge, it’s Democrats. Every effort is made to disclaim it, or point and prove otherwise. Where the fuck was this skepticism every time a cop was shot, or a cop shot someone? I don’t remember coming out in support of either by default, I looked at it case by case, supporting or denouncing them. I towed no party line in that, and didn’t let race issues get in the way.

  2. It’s exclusively party motivated. Trump supporters have literally no motivation right now to go on attacking sprees or race wars. Why? They fucking won. They are content, happy. They are waiting for Trump to inact change.

The only major party in America right now that us motivated by hysterial fear are the Democrats. They lost horribly bad, and they drummed up Trump to look like the love child of Hitler and the Anti-Christ. Only people playing the part of victims are those on the left, they have to constantly fear stuff that hasn’t happened, hasn’t been stated as a policy of Trump, they just fear him, cause that’s what political brainwashing, mass indoctrination, does. They fear and hate Trump like the Nazis feared Jews and Minorities. That’s how bad the closed minded hysteria is on the left.

Worst evidence I’ve seen of actually, non-suspected (or out right proven) hoaxes by Trump supporters of any stripe anywhere, would be on the extreme far left of his supporters, such as white supremicist groups, who did a nazi salute to Trump on TV. They didn’t go on a beating spree of minorities in those videos cause someone forgot to send out the invites to them for that get together. I absolutely denounce them, I strongly oppose white nationalists, as does Trump. I wish I saw Mowk, Carleas, and Smears coming out denouncing this act too, but you know they won’t.

There isn’t a motivation for hysterics in the Trump supporter camp. Everyone is remarkably fucking calm and content, only time I’ve gotten upset is seeing Democratic hijinks, such as the recount, efforts to get electors to switch votes, Obama’s CIA trying to destroy Trump’s legitimacy, etc. 99.999% of us have absolutely no motivation to get up, run outside and attack someone, cause we are all too busy watching YouTube videos of Democratic Party members going into hysterics. It’s funny as hell, and incredibly satisfying.

We aren’t in the obvious state of fight or flight, or of fear and anger. It is hard to get happy and content people to rise up and fight. That’s your Trump supporter right now.

The only people with any psychological motivation at all right now to pull these stunts are Democrats. Had Hillary won, Trump won… you would have undoubtedly legitimate cases. It isn’t really a time ripe for Trump supporters to go crazy. Perfect time to play the victim or attack someone if your a Democrat though.

Notice no attacks occurred in the months leading up to the election, when Democrats thought this would be a slam dunk? Why would Trump supporters choose to start lashing out ONLY once we won? It is bizarre to presume we would switch from being peaceful under duress to suddenly hateful and spiteful once we got everything we wanted on a platter. I think the left needs to seriously just pause and digest what’s happening, sing Let It Go, whatever you need to do. Trump is president, stop the politically motivated race wars, drop the hate in your hearts, and just move on. Embrace the country and unity, and work on creating a new message for the democratic party, one not motivated by the deviceness and hate like the last eight years, but of coming together as Americans. The race war the left engineered didn’t win the election, time to change tactics, to something positive and uplifting.

22

Mowk, Ucci didn’t use moderator powers in thus thread as far as I can see. Your free to post and do however you want, but having Ucci removed merely because he destroyed your argument isn’t right. You need to present valid counter facts to win public opinion here.

If Ucci is ever removed, I will fight tooth and nail to take over his position as moderator, and my first act will be permabanning whoever got him kicked out, then I will proceed not to ever bother people merely speaking their minds about political issues as a moderator.

I don’t always agree with him, about the only thing we share in common is support of Trump, but he has been a mostly let alone moderator, just letting people discuss and debate as they themselves feel fit. Why the hell would anyone want to get rid of a mod who let’s you express your political views without censorship, on a political forum?

Only reason why is if you keep having your ass handed to you in debates. Yeah, Ucci’s name is green, so seems intimidating. If he is just talking, then that is talk, same as anyone else. It’s a philosophy sure, he isn’t the forum eunuch slave, expected yo keep quiet and serve.

23

You can suspect whatever you like. We have riots and at least one kidnapping/torture attributed to people attacking Trump supporters, not to mention numerous fights and assaults at his rallies, and on the other side (Trump supporters attacking people) we have hoaxes and a few angry words. If you have a desire to imagine that the violence has been even from both sides despite the evidence, the proper thing to examine is why you feel that desire- can’t very well invetigate a lack of evidence, after all.

But this isn’t the only data point we have. Feel free to compare the actions of Tea party protestors to Occupy Wallstreet. Feel free to compare the actions of the alt-right to BLM. Feel free to compare black race riots and cop assassinations to…hell, I don’t even know what you’d compare it to. The left has a violence problem in this country that the right doesn’t have.

Well yes. We have tons of examples of white people being beaten in the streets, having their property vandalized, recieving death threats, or being outright assassinated in recent months. What’s your reason to think that other sorts of hate crimes are up post-Trump? Are you going to cite the Southern Poverty Law Center? :slight_smile:

Do you feel any degree of self-consciousness or guilt speculating about the rise of hate crimes perpetuated by Donald Trump in a thread about a white Trump supporter being kidnapped and tortured for being a white Trump supporter? Is there any degree of violence against Trump supporters that would shift your focus to these actual victims as opposed to the ones you speculate may well exist in theory?

Yeah, one of the generalizations is true, and one of them is false (as true and false as generalizations get, that is). Trump supporters aren’t actually violent racists, crows actually are black. That’s why the statements are completely different. There’s other statements you could make like “Trump supporters are anti-illegal-immigration” or “Muslims are anti-gay” that would be much closer to the crow statement in truth.

But I still feel like I’m in the realm of making explicit something everybody already knows unless they have a political edge to be gained from not knowing it.

Yeah, PK is doing it right now in another thread- he made a claim about religion and conservatism, people gave him examples of conservative atheists, he’s arguing it has no impact on his point. My point is that there is absolutely nothing complicated about generalizations. I firmly believe that humans with a standard IQ have mostly mastered generalizations by the time they hit a 6th grade reading level or so. But sometimes people want to ignore bad trends among groups they want to protect, or vice versa, and suddenly we have to act all confused at the notion that “Trump supporters are racist” don’t mean 100% of them.

24

I didn’t make shit up, do you have reading comprehension issues?

I did. Let me provide my source again: “Do a fucking 10 second internet search for Christ’s sake”. If you consult that very reliable source you will see any number of articles- dozens of them, most likely, referring to this victim as a ‘Trump supporter’. Even if every single one of them are wrong, I’m not making anything up.

Again, why make these fucking accusations when all it serves to show is that you haven’t actually looked into the matter?

25

Does it hurt, denying reality constantly? You people are all kinds of fucked up.

26

I have personally witnessed an extraordinary number of fights breaking out due to the intense hatred from Hillary supporters who now become extremely angry at every mention of Trump. Who the greater haters are, who hates more, conservative or liberal, is becoming very obvious (not that it wasn’t always known by the wise and honest of heart).

27

Arguably opinion, Does it hurt you that all you have is opinion? Us people Huh? Yeah, that hurts, loads. Really? I am a one for all and all for one sort of guy. The notion of every person for them self doesn’t appeal. While I remain every bit capable of living for myself, experience has render me a different opinion. I love. Do you? Really?

28

Querry?

29

Debate 101.

(2017 amendment) Effort to lay the blame on your opponent in the argument.

Lesson 101a, if you are going to make a claim to fact, back it up with sources, and be prepare to defend them.

Still no link.

30

“Expect”. As in, the phenomenon being described, if it were occurring, would look like what we’re seeing, which is evidence that the phenomenon being described is occurring.

Yes, there absolutely is. Humans are terrible at generalizing across large populations, and drawing conclusions about groups based on a sample of their members is really difficult (see, for instance, pre-election polling). There are multiple acknowledged cognitive biases describing the common ways in which we reach irrational conclusions on bad evidence about groups of people. We’re bad at intuiting and reasoning about the behavior of large groups, and differentiating it from the behavior of small groups and of individuals.

To do it properly is complicated. “Fox News told me about a guy being beat up” isn’t a sound methodology for proving anything about a group of people.

From the OP:

If you don’t want to talk about it, don’t talk about it. You’re borrowing a page from the regressive left playbook to suggest people should feel guilty for second guessing your spin. This isn’t a safe space.

31

TTFN, I tire of it.
to exhaust the interest, patience, etc., of; make weary; bore:
It’s different to any kind of hurting;. It’s the wall.

32

No, the phenomenon being described, if it were occurring, would look like a bunch of guys in MAGA hats beating the shit out of a Mexican person while screaming “Fuck Obama” and “Go home beaner” or whatever- like what happened here. But we don’t have that, so you’re pretending that other crimes are attributable to Trump instead.

So for example, I could just pretend that any given example of black on white crime was motivated by anti-Trump sentiment, if I wanted to play your game. Lord knows there’s absolute shitloads of black on white crime, after all. But I don’t do that, because I don’t have to do that, because there are adequate examples of violent crime where the attacker declares aloud “This is happening because I am angry at Donald Trump!!”

That’s the difference between having evidence, and using one’s imagination to fill the lack of evidence.

It’s also worth pointing out that ‘what we’re seeing’ is nothing different than what we’ve always been seeing. There have always been racist white guys beating up on this or that person with brown skin. So why does the same old thing happening as has always happened suddenly count as evidence for some new explanation of it?

That’s not really related to somebody making a generalization, and somebody else ‘defeating’ that generalization by pretending it has to apply in 100% of cases in order to be true. I’m talking more about what a generalization is and how it’s used in language than the skill at developing a good one. So for example, your case of “Trump supporters are violent and racist”. Zero people think a statement like that is meant to apply to 100% of Trump supporters. In fact, I’d bet the majority of people who express agreement with such a statement think it even applies to half of Trump supporters. Hillary was lambasted for calling just half of Trump supporters deplorables, after all. They are branding a group according to the behavior of a minority of members in the group, and they are fully aware that that’s what they are doing, and they are doing it because it serves a rhetorical/political advantage to do so. No ‘mistake’ is being made. It’s simply not a sophisticated enough situation for things like cognitive bias to come into it. So when somebody says “Trump supporters are violent racists”, you can either do the pedantic thing and say “Not all of them!” as if they didn’t already know that, or you can address the point that they’re making, which is that violence and racism is a disturbing trend among Trump supporters. In this particular instance, the way to address that point would be to remind them that we can tie anti-Trump folks to far more racial violence than we can his supporters.

Right. You just have to drop the assumption that people who make utterances like that are actually trying to prove anything in order to engage them.

You are right about that one, I was/am an ass!

33

This all strikes me as terribly familiar. You and I debate for 1 or 2 exchanges, you realize you have no reply, and so start spamming incomprehensible garbage that has nothing to do with the subject at hand and seems as though you’re talking to yourself. I think it’s kind of cute actually; in my mind’s eye, I have utterly blown your mind with the power of my arguments, and you are left an incoherent mess, typing in a fugue state. Even still, I can’t help but think your time would have been better spent taking my advice and doing a little reading on this issue you freely chose to enter into a conversation about.

34

You just have to be a Trump supporter, or even a lukewarm conservative to know that this is true. It’s a source of constant fear- you put a sign out, you’re risking vandalism to your property. You wear a MAGA hat, you better not be in the wrong neighborhood. Anybody participating in an internet forum who is tempted to link to a Fox News story has that moment where they pause and think, “Is this really worth it? Am I going to lose friends? Am I going to be banned?”

The left is absolutely hostile.

35

36

foxnews.com/us/2017/01/07/mo … media.html

37

foxnews.com/us/2017/01/06/ju … video.html

Judge refusing them bail.

38

The most salient point I’ve heard on this matter.

39

But the claim isn’t that they’re targeting people for being Obama supporters, so they probably wouldn’t be screaming “Fuck Obama”. And until there’s a case where the liberal attackers are wearing “I’m with Her” t-shirts, there’s no reason to expect MAGA hats either. And we do see people beating other people up screaming things like “go home beaner”, so the one thing you list that we actually should expect to see, we do in fact see.

And you’re right that people were beating up other people while screaming “go home beaner” before Trump. But there’s evidence that the rate at which such incidents occur are increasing. It is reasonable to draw a causal connection between the election of a president who dog whistled a lot of racist positions, and a spike in racist violence following the election.

Expectation is not the same as imagination. What counts as evidence of something depends on what we expect to see if that thing were the case. For differently motivated violence, we’d expect to see different things, but both count as evidence of their respective kinds of violence.

Sorry, I’ve been conflating two separate criticisms, though I think both are valid.

One is that it isn’t clear what “Trump supporters are violent” really means, so partisans hear it differently and disagree about the meaning and say that it’s true or false without really disagreeing with each other about the facts. For example, I don’t see how “Hillary supporters are violent” affects the statement “Trump supporters are violent”. Suppose I said, “Sunni extremists are violent”, and a Sunni extremist said, “Clearly not, because look at all the violence the Shia extremists are doing!” But these statements are not incompatible, the second is a non-sequitur.

But that’s too easy and there’s a good chance I’m just misreading you, so let me better articulate the more general version of the argument that these generalizations are insufficiently meaningful:
The average Hillary supporter is a woman, and women as a population or significantly less prone to violence than men, so if the average Hillary supporter is more female than the average Trump supporter (i.e., women are a greater proportion of Hillary voters than they are of Trump voters), we should expect the average Hillary supporter to be less violent. But let’s suppose that Hillary-supporting men are particularly violent, so that on average Hillary supporters are less violent, but the ones who are violent are much more violent than the average person. Is that situation captured by the claim, “Hillary supporters are violent”? Suppose instead that the average Hillary supporter is more prone to violence, but the most violent people in society supported Trump. It’s not at all unreasonable nor merely rhetorically convenient to wonder if the claim is that 1) most partisan violence is perpetrated by Clinton supporters, 2) the most violent partisans are Clinton supporters, 3) Clinton supporters are on average more violent than Trump supporters, or 4) Clinton supporters are on average more violent than the average citizen. Those are all reasonable interpretations of the vague claim “Clinton supporters are violent” (especially when everyone’s acknowledging that it doesn’t mean all Clinton supporters are violent).

The second, distinct criticism that I’d been conflating with the above is that, to the extent a meaningful generalization can be made about partisans on either side, the generalizations are being made on bad evidence because of the way that humans are bad at generalizing. Take James’ post:

“Personally”: personal anecdotes are a bad sample on which to generalize for a population, most of which you never interact with personally.
“Extraordinary”: how surprising is it that the number of anti-Trump attacks increases when Trump is at the peak of his prominence? Humans are bad at identifying the baseline from which we measure deviations in order to tease out causation.
“Hillary supporters”: how do we know these are Hillary supporters? Just because they’re beating up Trump supporters? Do we have any independent evidence about how these people feel about Hillary? If we assume in that every time a Trump supporter gets beat up, they’re being beat up by a Hillary supporter and it’s because they’re a Trump supporter, then it isn’t at all surprising that the data show that Trump supporters are being beat up by Hillary supporters (and only Hillary supporters!) and because they’re Trump supporters (and with no other justification!).
“extremely angry at every mention of Trump”: Was it the mere mention? Was it mere endorsement? Was it endorsement of a specific policy of Trump’s? How much of these personally witnessed episodes was witnessed, just the part where people start beating each other up, or the whole interaction from start to finish? Again, if we’re assuming that the evidence that there’s an altercation and that the victim is a Trump supporter is tantamount to evidence that they’re being beaten up by a Hillary supporter because they’re a Trump supporter, we aren’t really drawing a causal connection between supporting Hillary support, Trump support, and violence. It’s just assuming it in, and then turning around and acting as though we’ve discovered the connection we already assumed existed.

We’re talking about a group of tens of millions, spread across several million square miles, comprising different sexes, races, cultures, etc. It looks like the generalization being made, if it means anything, means something like that knowing someone is a Hillary supporter is independent evidence of their likelihood of committing violence. If the personal observation of an unspecified number of incidents about which the observer likely had only partial information, and confined to the observer’s location (almost certainly a single state, likely a single town or neighborhood) – if that’s the evidence we’re going on, the generalization is a bad one, we have effectively no reason to believe that knowing that someone is a Hillary supporter tells us anything about their likelihood of violence.

Similar criticisms apply to incidents witnessed-by-proxy on the news: the news is not a representative sample of incidents.

That’s being a little sassy, but it’s a valid and important point. And if your point is just that the same can be said about claims like “Trump supporters are violent”, you’re right, in which case, carry on.

40

You are so full of shit your eyes are brown. Instead of doing the exact thing that you are accusing others of doing (typical stupid-as-a-stump liberal tactic) why don’t you provide some evidence?