Tuesday, May 12, 2020

"Ask China"

1. It's obvious the reporter was asking Trump a loaded question. Baiting Trump. Of course, the mainstream media doesn't focus on her loaded question. Just Trump's response.

2. I bet Trump would have said "ask China" regardless of the reporter's race/ethnicity.

3. Liberals are saying this isn't an isolated incident. They're saying Trump has a "pattern". However, even if (arguendo) that were true, that doesn't mean it's true in this case.

Also, if we want to talk about "patterns", then what about the "pattern" of liberals always getting so easily triggered and playing the victim?

4. Many people are saying Trump is thin-skinned. That he shouldn't have walked out on the press conference. Sure, Trump is thin-skinned. However, it's also true much of the media is out to get Trump. Gotcha journalism and the like. It's hardly a mystery why Trump would walk out. And I wouldn't blame him for walking out on these kind of people.

Likewise, what about the reporter and mainstream media being thin-skinned too? They're so touchy by assuming the president saying "ask China" to an Asian-American reporter must be due to racism.

5. Not to mention the reporter's virtue signaling by asking the question she asked. However, if she and other reporters are just going to go around self-righteously or sanctimoniously congratulating one another for asking these sorts of lame questions, then what's the point of the press conference? The press conference is a waste of time for Trump. Why shouldn't he walk out? He has more important things to do as the president.


  1. Most people have a sense of entitlement. That common human delusion is merely amplified in certain individuals, professions, socioeconomic levels, etc.

  2. "Liberals are saying this isn't an isolated incident. They're saying Trump has a "pattern". However, even if (arguendo) that were true, that doesn't mean it's true in this case."

    This is a common line of thought. It's what makes it difficult, often impossible, to reason with someone from another political party. One's political outlook is made up of a thousand little incidents that form a pattern, but often there is more ambiguity the vast majority of the incidents themselves than the impression from the overall pattern which is used to buttress the certainty of the interpretation of the individual incidents. 

    So, for instance, the next time Trump says something that could be construed as racist, this particular remark to a Chinese reporter will be part of the pattern that is used to justify one's knowledge that this new statement is racist. 

    Trying to make progress with someone from another political party, thus, usually involves having to go back to a myriad of incidents and try to analyze them on their own merits, without the feedback mechanism of the "pattern." This is most obvious when arguing about certain political characters (e.g., Barack Obama or Donald Trump). But it also applies with policy, because the belief about the efficacy or morality of policy is usually also woven into an entire tapestry made from individual threads of what this state did or failed to do or who this policies helps or who deserves help etc.

    At least that's how it seems to me. Let me know if there's an easy way to undercut the entire tapestry at once ;)