Keith Olbermann is now making videos for GQ. This one is 17 minutes long, a 2500-word tirade in which he lists a collection of “Donald John Trump”’s worst hits. On the website he posts it, there is a transcript, in which there are tons of links to solid, concrete evidence. The first, where Trump supposedly attacked the pope, links to Trump’s own website, where he claims (or at least strongly implies) that the Pope is “disgraceful” for suggesting Trump’s border wall platform “isn’t Christian.”
Olbermann spent the time to write 2500 words, then presented them, well documented with links and historical references. And nobody at GQ or his loved ones or any sane person had the goddamn common courtesy to tell him he was wasting his time. The true things he says aren't true. This sentence is false. 2+2 = 5.
How? Context. In an effort to eliminate obfuscation and emphasize objectivity, the only things that Olbermann says are facts. Because while it is objectively true that Donald Trump said things that, based on the uber-strict definitions used by people to define words do indeed mean certain things, it doesn't mean he really attacked the Pope. Because with context, all things are possible- including disproving every single thing that KO wrote. Through the power of sheer will and stubbornness, we can decide that anything is false.
I recently asked pro-Trump friends of mine what they thought about this video, and the general consensus from their feedback states that every (objectively and demonstrably true) statement made by Olbermann is either false by fact or false by context. But what’s really crazy about this is the more I think about it, the more I can believe them when they say they don't believe it. Through the advancement of ego politics, we can take anything said by anyone and make it mean pretty much anything. Let’s demonstrate:
In his candidacy announcement speech, Trump says the following:
[Mexico
is] sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing
those problems with us[sic]. They’re bringing drugs. they’re
bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good
people.
From here, we can go
one of two ways. Method one is to declare that this is a complete
fabrication (a very effective argument, since literally forcing
somebody to actually watch or read something that contradicts their
beliefs is probably a crime, unless you’re the Church of
Scientology.)
The other method involves a very strange dance with ideas, collectively known as questioning the context.
The other method involves a very strange dance with ideas, collectively known as questioning the context.
“Sure, that might
be the words that came out of his mouth, but the framing that you’ve
used to present them implies that they mean a specific thing- that
Trump said immigrants fall into a Venn diagram of rapists,
drug-bringers, criminals, and assumed good people. If you were to
show the rest of what he said, the real meaning would come across
completely different.”
So let’s look at the entirety of the speech segment that Trump dedicated to Mexican, um… immigration?
When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they’re killing us economically.
The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems.
So let’s look at the entirety of the speech segment that Trump dedicated to Mexican, um… immigration?
When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they’re killing us economically.
The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems.
Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
But
I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And
it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re
sending us not the right people.
This is almost
perfectly vague. He had to get a little further into racist territory to avoid sharing the same PC space as Rubio or Rand Paul. But any closer to the statement "All Mexicans are rapists" and it's a
cakewalk to criticize and condemn, the kind that even
the deepest drop in the Bucket of Deplorable would have to walk back.
So to get into the mind of people who believe this, or
people who don’t want to believe that this is what is being said,
we need to do some work here. Let the rationalizations begin!
First sentence:
First sentence:
When
do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our
stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our
friend, believe me. But they’re killing us economically.
So… When do we beat Mexico at the border? Objectively speaking, I don’t think we literally beat Mexico at the border. Nor do I think there is a lot of solid evidence that we literally beat Mexicans at the border. Now, if goal is to prevent the illegal crossing of the border of any illegal immigrants, and Mexico’s goal is to transport immigrants across that border (a statement which can’t be proven false, technically) then really, they’re winning. They’re beating us. So in at least one way, his question is legitimate.
Economically speaking, I’m certain there are ways in which Mexico is making strides that we haven’t. If we were, say, running a two country contest as to who could be 15th in global GDP rankings, well, they’ve done that for basically a decade, while we’ve been first or second (bested in some estimates by the European Union.)
This is already getting messy.
So… When do we beat Mexico at the border? Objectively speaking, I don’t think we literally beat Mexico at the border. Nor do I think there is a lot of solid evidence that we literally beat Mexicans at the border. Now, if goal is to prevent the illegal crossing of the border of any illegal immigrants, and Mexico’s goal is to transport immigrants across that border (a statement which can’t be proven false, technically) then really, they’re winning. They’re beating us. So in at least one way, his question is legitimate.
Economically speaking, I’m certain there are ways in which Mexico is making strides that we haven’t. If we were, say, running a two country contest as to who could be 15th in global GDP rankings, well, they’ve done that for basically a decade, while we’ve been first or second (bested in some estimates by the European Union.)
This is already getting messy.
The
U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems.
Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
Hooo boy. OK. So
let’s say that it’s not beyond the stretch of the imagination to
say that when he means “Mexico is sending” he really means that
“Mexicans are coming.” It’s not that far
of a reach.
Remember, one of the things that makes this man appealing is that he doesn’t sound like a politician. Hillary Clinton has people on her
payroll that are in charge of shaping her words for her. Trump
either doesn’t have the luxury or (more likely) doesn’t care. So if you can forgive the guy for not
spending the resources to craft a perfect public persona, then you
have to forgive him when he doesn’t say exactly what
he means.
From there, if we can argue that “some, I assume, are good people” can theoretically apply to every Mexican immigrant that isn’t bringing drugs, crime, or rape to the United States, then we can argue that Trump could be talking about only two drug-smuggling criminal rapists who just happen to be Mexican immigrants. The rest, he assumes, are good people.
From there, if we can argue that “some, I assume, are good people” can theoretically apply to every Mexican immigrant that isn’t bringing drugs, crime, or rape to the United States, then we can argue that Trump could be talking about only two drug-smuggling criminal rapists who just happen to be Mexican immigrants. The rest, he assumes, are good people.
So,
depending on how much work you’re willing to put into thinking
about these remarks, Trump is either talking about the vast majority
of Mexico, or two Mexicans. The meaning of his words can change to
suit somebody’s perspective, which is a way of saying that they
don’t mean anything alt all. All this is meant to do is
People have to work
such insane mental gymnastics to attach validity to insane and stupid
things, but they do it, because it turns out that all of that work is
nothing compared to the act of changing their minds. As this election
h as shown, figuring out how, exactly, it isn’t offensive to claim
that Mexican immigrants are bringing drugs, crime, and rape to the
Unite States is the go-to thought cycle of those who wouldn’t even
consider an ideological alternative. It’s easier than considering
Crooked Hillary! Sad!
I’m not going to
pretend that this hasn’t been this way forever- reach back as far
as you can into history, and you’ll see that objective evidence has
always been thrown to the wayside when people’s politics are
attached to their financial or psychological self-interest. It even
ruined John Kerry’s chances of winning the election a dozen years
ago. Kerry was for the Iraq war, but then learned somethings,
considered the topic, and changed his mind. He was branded a “flip
flopper,” and the diabolical act of rethinking his policy made him
lose to this fucking guy.
But I’m not sure
if we’ve ever seen a nexus between candidates this polarizing, a myriad of horrifying true statements that mean nothing when reality becomes politically inconvenient, and a stage this large.
Upton Sinclair once
wrote “It is difficult to get a man to understanding, when his
salary depends on him not understanding it.” Change that to "salary and psyche". As long as we can take a sentence and make it
mean whatever we want, we aren’t changing shit.
