https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/17/17364562/trump-animals-dehumanization-psychology

Donald Trump and the disturbing power of dehumanizing language

Dehumanization is already prevalent in America. We don’t need anyone — especially Trump — stoking it further.

As Vox’s Dara Lind points out, it, at first, was unclear exactly whom Trump was referring to: people deported for being involved in the MS-13 street gang, or anyone who has been deported? Trump clarified on Twitter Friday that he thought the gang members were the animals.

***

History and psychological science show us that when we refer to people as “animals” or anything other than “people,” it flips a mental switch in our minds. It allows us to deny empathy to other people, makes us feel numb to their pain, and lets us forgive ourselves for causing them harm.

Last year, when Trump gave a speech to a crowd of law enforcement officers on Long Island, he also called MS-13 gang members “animals.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3982765&forum_id=2#36096163)

goddamn shitlibs

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3982765&forum_id=2#36096176)

https://www.vox.com/2018/5/18/17368716/trump-animals-immigrants-illegal-ms-13

The context of Trump’s “animals” comments: all people are people — but “violent gang members are people too” may not be a winning political message

The Trump administration won the public argument about whether Trump was, at least ostensibly, referring to MS-13 members. But that doesn’t resolve the argument over whether it was morally okay for him to do that.

Indeed, to those who believe the most important point is that no one should ever be described as subhuman, attempts to explain the context of Trump’s remarks were seen as attempts to justify the dehumanization of some people as long as they’re accused of being in a gang.

On one level, this is a sheer argument of deontological ethics: All people are possessed of innate human dignity, and no act they commit can strip that of them or justify other people acting toward them as if they do not possess it. Most codes of ethics don’t allow people to treat others badly just because they have done bad things. Christianity makes a virtue of mercy and has its messiah tell a mob they are morally unfit to stone an adulteress (a violator of one of the Ten Commandments!) unless they are wholly without sin.

On another level, though, this is an instrumental argument that dehumanizing anyone leads to bad outcomes. An entire academic literature is dedicated to the pernicious effects of dehumanizing language; an oversimplified version of that literature, often expressed during the “animals” debate, is that dehumanization of a particular scapegoat group is a necessary component of totalitarian rhetoric. (The implication was often that comments like Trump’s are always a precursor to genocidal violence, which doesn’t hold logically.) More specifically, as criminologist John Pfaff pointed out, a willingness to accept criminals as subhuman encourages law enforcement officers to treat them accordingly, with often horrific results.

The people making this argument weren’t primarily Democratic politicians. But after a day or so of the animals debate, Republicans had shifted to the idea that they had jiujitsued liberals into defending MS-13, and that that would help them in November. This, too, is a fixture of dialogue in the age of Trump: even people who wouldn’t defend his statements on the merits believe that they create an advantageous political situation for his party by inspiring the other side to do something politically counterproductive.

It seems logical that MS-13 is inherently a winning issue for Trump and a losing one for Democrats (though it’s worth noting that in the one post-Trump race where the tie between immigration and crime was central to the campaign, the Virginia gubernatorial election, the Democrat won).

But it’s another example of people talking past each other. No one is saying that it is politically useful to adopt the message of “Trump was just talking about violent MS-13 criminals, but they are people too.” Trump’s critics are either emphasizing that it is true that MS-13 members are also human beings or making the argument that Trump doesn’t really just mean MS-13 members when he says “animals.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3982765&forum_id=2#36096198)

I always love it when libs package their garbage under the guise of just trying to give Trump sincere political advice, looking out for his best interests.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3982765&forum_id=2#36096219)

The Trump administration won the public argument about whether Trump was, at least ostensibly, referring to MS-13 members. But that doesn’t resolve the argument over whether it was morally okay for him to do that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3982765&forum_id=2#36117107)

"serious"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3982765&forum_id=2#36096220)

https://i.redditmedia.com/SmHhi-SbN6NPbKmcX_x5JbMuJD8L2q785Nw9K89X_vQ.png?s=65453c02b8aa6878a2a6adc7e674a354

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3982765&forum_id=2#36096332)

http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2018/05/ms-13_animals_trump.html

Last week, President Donald Trump was accused - somewhat inaccurately, it seems - of describing as "animals" people who try or succeed in illegally crossing the Mexican border into the United States. Trump wasn't talking about everybody crossing illegally, only members of the violent gang MS-13. And this week, in what can only be described as a sophomoric response to complaints about Trump's use of the word "animal," the White House released a press release about MS-13 that uses the word "animals" 10 times.

****

It's disturbing to see the White House - in an official press release, no less - describe the members of MS-13 as something other than human. Have the members of that gang shown themselves to be violent, even murderous? For sure. Therefore, the White House would be justified using the words violent and murderous. "Animals" goes too far.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3982765&forum_id=2#36103279)

"We know when Trump says X, he actually means Y, because he said Z"

Trump hasn't done anything quasi-racist this month, so they have to take the MS-13 thing and run with it. "While not inherently racist, when you remember that Trump is the guy who said tehre were some good people at Charlottesville or called Senator Warren Pocahontas, you realize this is just the latest in a long line of statements from America's first KKK president."

Next month when he makes a joke about Chinese food, you'll hear, "Sure this joke seems inoffensive if it were told by your uncle, but this is the President of the United States, and more importantly, the President of the United States who called Mexicans animals last month."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3982765&forum_id=2#36117116)