I would like to analyze Donald Trump's statement "it's a scary time for young men" in the context of the critical values listed on page 79.
Clarity:
Sometimes, I have observed, lack of clarity has been used to bolster arguments.
Donald Trump often employs vague language in his speeches and press statements. This leaves a wide door open for interpretation from the audience. There may be a general consensus on what his statements meant, but there are also groups of people who seem to interpret an alternate or sometimes opposite meaning from the consensus. Last week he stated "it's a scary time for young men." He gave little context and did not explain the implications of his statement, but he was likely referring to the Kavanaugh senate hearing and the argument that allegations of sexual misconduct can be "weaponized" to sabotage men. While this is the most common interpretation I have seen, there is also a massive variety of claims and implications that this statement holds. In a sense, this ambiguity works in his favor because few would venture to fully deconstruct and counter every possible interpretation; an argument left unaddressed could be seen as an argument won.
Significance:
Reactions to Trump's vague statement also demonstrate the incongruity of the public audience. While men often seem more receptive of the message, women have generally illustrated intense opposition. This has demonstrated a huge valley of separation between the significance that the general male population interprets the issue, versus the rest of the public. Of course, the statement was not-so-subtly crafted to generate this reaction. Trump paints men as the target, and it is at odds with the general route of argumentation to argue against someone claiming to fend for you. Feminists on the other hand are likely to point at the implication that people will devalue assault allegations which are already undervalued.
Relevance:
The dominating feature of news for the past month has been the Kavanaugh hearing. This has brought light and fervor to both feminist causes and the arguments against them. A simple look at my Facebook feed presents a checkerboard of opposing arguments. Men and conservatives are more likely to resound with the implication that allegations are being taken too seriously, while the rest of the population is interested in supporting more serious treatment of allegations. There are many relevant feminist causes that have become popular in recent years, but this is the most relevant area of discussion at the moment.
Besides the Kavanaugh hearing, Trump himself is the president and a person who has been accused of sexual misconduct by several women.
Inherency:
A major part of the claim that allegations (false allegations in particular) can be weaponized, is the implication that it is inherent. My interpretation of the intended inherency of Trump's claim is: it is a "scary time for young men" because false allegations can and will be used against them. Trump is implying that false allegations will be used to sabotage men. In a way, he demonstrates another reversal of the application of critical values. Trump does not provide the evidence supporting his claim, rather, he leaves the research and support up to the audience.
Consistency:
In a weird way I think his statement could be interpreted as both inconsistent and consistent by the public audience. In demonstrating a lack of awareness (or brazen opposition) of women's causes and decency he is actually being consistent. In the past he argued in support of Roy Moore when he was accused of sexual misconduct and of course there are the Access Hollywood tapes. On the other hand, his statement is inconsistent with claims that he supports the #MeToo movement and that he is "very happy a lot of these things are coming out." Once again I feel that he inverts the traditional interpretation of consistency to his own benefit. He says anything when it is most advantageous for himself and hopefully not everyone notices.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Overall I think Trump's general motivation and arguments have little to do with the subject at hand, and much more to do with manipulation. His arguments are not solid because they are not intended to be. They intend to provoke, inflame, confuse, and embattle the audience - not prove specific points.
Clarity:
Sometimes, I have observed, lack of clarity has been used to bolster arguments.
Donald Trump often employs vague language in his speeches and press statements. This leaves a wide door open for interpretation from the audience. There may be a general consensus on what his statements meant, but there are also groups of people who seem to interpret an alternate or sometimes opposite meaning from the consensus. Last week he stated "it's a scary time for young men." He gave little context and did not explain the implications of his statement, but he was likely referring to the Kavanaugh senate hearing and the argument that allegations of sexual misconduct can be "weaponized" to sabotage men. While this is the most common interpretation I have seen, there is also a massive variety of claims and implications that this statement holds. In a sense, this ambiguity works in his favor because few would venture to fully deconstruct and counter every possible interpretation; an argument left unaddressed could be seen as an argument won.
Significance:
Reactions to Trump's vague statement also demonstrate the incongruity of the public audience. While men often seem more receptive of the message, women have generally illustrated intense opposition. This has demonstrated a huge valley of separation between the significance that the general male population interprets the issue, versus the rest of the public. Of course, the statement was not-so-subtly crafted to generate this reaction. Trump paints men as the target, and it is at odds with the general route of argumentation to argue against someone claiming to fend for you. Feminists on the other hand are likely to point at the implication that people will devalue assault allegations which are already undervalued.
Relevance:
The dominating feature of news for the past month has been the Kavanaugh hearing. This has brought light and fervor to both feminist causes and the arguments against them. A simple look at my Facebook feed presents a checkerboard of opposing arguments. Men and conservatives are more likely to resound with the implication that allegations are being taken too seriously, while the rest of the population is interested in supporting more serious treatment of allegations. There are many relevant feminist causes that have become popular in recent years, but this is the most relevant area of discussion at the moment.
Besides the Kavanaugh hearing, Trump himself is the president and a person who has been accused of sexual misconduct by several women.
Inherency:
A major part of the claim that allegations (false allegations in particular) can be weaponized, is the implication that it is inherent. My interpretation of the intended inherency of Trump's claim is: it is a "scary time for young men" because false allegations can and will be used against them. Trump is implying that false allegations will be used to sabotage men. In a way, he demonstrates another reversal of the application of critical values. Trump does not provide the evidence supporting his claim, rather, he leaves the research and support up to the audience.
Consistency:
In a weird way I think his statement could be interpreted as both inconsistent and consistent by the public audience. In demonstrating a lack of awareness (or brazen opposition) of women's causes and decency he is actually being consistent. In the past he argued in support of Roy Moore when he was accused of sexual misconduct and of course there are the Access Hollywood tapes. On the other hand, his statement is inconsistent with claims that he supports the #MeToo movement and that he is "very happy a lot of these things are coming out." Once again I feel that he inverts the traditional interpretation of consistency to his own benefit. He says anything when it is most advantageous for himself and hopefully not everyone notices.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Overall I think Trump's general motivation and arguments have little to do with the subject at hand, and much more to do with manipulation. His arguments are not solid because they are not intended to be. They intend to provoke, inflame, confuse, and embattle the audience - not prove specific points.
Comments
Post a Comment