- 26,606
- 38,141
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2013
I don't take issue with deducing something different.I disagree with your characterization of the statements. That isn't an inability to infer. We just deduced something different from the statements.
I completely understand how you came to the conclusion you did. You, however, seem unwilling to admit that I also had a reasonable interpretation of his statements.
If you have a different interpretation of Trump's NFL comments that's fine but I can't make sense of arguing "If he said (interpretation) literally, then I would speak out"
The problem I find with that argument in general, not just applying it to Trump in that case, is that it completely ignores that people don't always talk in the most literal terms.
Politicians in general do so very rarely. Doublespeak, euphemisms, the concept of dog whistling, ... the list goes on.
There are countless ways to get a point across without coming anywhere near literally laying out that specific point.
You yourself have brought up the concept of dog whistling so I assume you're aware of what it means. As a general example, if a particular dog whistle is aimed at African-Americans, how many times do you ever see the term African-American explicitly brought up in that dog whistle remark? Or any explicit proclamation of targeting that specific group?
I don't see how you can apply the "If he said (insert something negative here) literally, then I would speak out" argument in any case when the concept of a dog whistle exists.
Surely you would take issue with a rather blatant dog whistle but one that still falls short of a literal proclamation of the intent behind it? If the intent behind it was said literally then it would no longer be a dog whistle in the first place.