Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Trekkin]

(and is probably under the effect of cognitive deterioration to some degree)

Or, at the very least, extreme stress. Everyone who was able to calm Trump down and steer him away from his worst impulses is gone, and he feels like he's proven his way works by lasting this long, so there's nothing left to stop him vomiting semi-coherent rage on everyone within reach who even notionally works for him. Giuliani is supposed to be handling one of his biggest stressors in the form of the Mueller investigation, and to date he has failed to make it disappear. He is expected to do so via television, a medium Trump (wrongly) believes he has mastered. In addition, he's a far cry from what Trump considers telegenic, and we know that counts for a great deal with him.

Thus, we can reasonably expect that every time Trump gets anxious about Mueller, he screams obscenities at Giuliani in between calling him fat, bald, and/or inept. How often do we think Trump is anxious about Mueller?

[Frumple]

To be fair, that also describes anyone who studies ethics.

It really goddamn doesn't.

[Il Palazzo]

Oh hey, another Trumper is coming up with weird shit around truths. This time is was Giuliani saying “truth isn’t truth” in an interview regarding Trump talking to the Mueller investigation.

Man, I'd heard about it yesterday or somethin', but actually heard the statement a few minutes ago. Guy sounded legitimately unhinged when he said that. Like damn.

Yeah, nope. I've no love for Trump and his homonculi, but this recent attack on Giuliani is plain dishonest. It's clear all the guy meant was that what is being sold as truth may not be true. Or, in other words, 'the news are presenting a narrative that is more important than facts'. Or, in other words, 'don't buy the propaganda'. It's what 'fake news' meant before it was stripped of any meaning by endless chanting from the dais.
Whether that view has any merit is another matter entirely.
One could fault Giuliani for poor word choice, or argue against his and Trump's views on media bias. But latching on an out-of-context expression to paint him as some unhinged Orwellian doublespeaker - the way the interviewer did, and the way it was presented here - is just ambush tactics. It's playing into the same narrative the phrase was complaining about.

[Frumple]

... man, I was speaking about tone of voice and whatnot. It's not word choice that came off as unhinged, it was how the guy said it. Like, recently, I've heard that same sort of intonation come out of elderly who are displaying alzheimer's symptoms when they're particularly distressed/confused.

[Trekkin]

What he meant to say is still Orwellian doublespeak, though: that everyone other than Trump is credible only insofar as they agree with Trump, beyond which point they are and always have been a deep state plant with zero credibility. Reality is true only insofar as it supports the Trump narrative, beyond which point your eyes and ears are filthy liars. "Truth isn't truth" wasn't meant as a "pontification on moral theology". Okay, sure. It was meant to discredit all that is not Trump, and in that context it is another rendition of "what you're seeing and what you're hearing is not what's happening" and it is still profoundly not okay.

[smjjames]

Can't wait for the moment where they play that sort of game with something and it comes back to bite them in the ass and set it on fire.

[Il Palazzo]

and it is still profoundly not okay.

No, it's not okay. But it's also not the angle given to what he said. It wasn't 'Giuliani again denies credibility to everyone who's not toeing the party line' - it was 'Giuliiani doesn't believe in the concept of truth. He mad, m'kay?'

[Dunamisdeos]

He specifically clarified that he means "referring to the situation where two people make precisely contradictory statements, the classic 'he said,she said' puzzle" but we know what he really meant is the exact opposite thing that makes it easier to insinuate that hes insane.

I want to go back to doggos.

[MrRoboto75]

I want to go back to doggos.

Trump placed tariff on doggos

[Dunamisdeos]

I want to go back to doggos.

Trump placed tariff on doggos

Burn it all.

[Kagus]

I want to go back to doggos.

Trump placed tariff on doggos

Further worsening relations with China.

To be fair, that also describes anyone who studies ethics.

It really goddamn doesn't.

You either study little enough ethics to be the hero, or you study long enough to realize everyone is a villain but that it doesn't mean anything anyways.

It's a fun field. Not good for sanity, but fun.

[Dunamisdeos]

Most of the people I talk to IRL who claim to study ethics turn 100% of their studies to trying to convince people that nothing they do or say is their fault because they read a book once that said things can be fluid. That means what's right is whatever they personally want it to be today, not that society changes over time, you see.
 
These people are pompous, butter-minded trolls, or PB&T for short. I firmly believe I have had simply a poor sampling, as I also find people who actually care about studying ethics are usually super interesting. Like many of you, for instance (are the latter, let's head that one off right meow).

[Max™]

Rights are what I claim I am free to do or avoid, freedoms are those things unprevented, morals are statements about how I wish to be treated and intend to treat others, ethics are things I do even if nobody else knows, or at least that's what makes sense to me but I probably have that brain thing I already mentioned.

[Dunamisdeos]

My understanding is that ethics are what is considered right or permissible in society, and morals are personal beliefs that guide your actions.

However, I have no specific education in this regards. I'm sure there's people here who do.

Anyway has Giuliani always been a Trump type of guy? He always seemed like he had the personality but not the capacity for ridiculousness, I actually wouldn't have expected him to get this on board with Trump.

[Trekkin]

Anyway has Giuliani always been a Trump type of guy? He always seemed like he had the personality but not the capacity for ridiculousness, I actually wouldn't have expected him to get this on board with Trump.

Depends on how you mean; he's always been pugnacious, and I think he followed Christie in playing that up when Trump became capo candidate in the hope of getting a Cabinet position. At a guess he also watched Christie come away with nothing for all his efforts and has decided to double down on it, thus the current ridiculousness.