Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » Some folks get off on hate. At Trump rallies the ones who shouted LOCK HER UP are good examples. Why do they think hate is so great?

Some folks get off on hate. At Trump rallies the ones who shouted LOCK HER UP are good examples. Why do they think hate is so great?

Posted - February 18, 2017

Responses


  • 32529
    Lock her up....May not mean hate. I have heard many simply say they locked up the guy who simply took a picture of his desk on a submarine and stored it on his computer. If he went to jail...She did the same thing multiple times (how many emails?)

    Much better to chant "lock her up" than go out and destroy property by riots etc. Much more hate involved in that than mere words.


      February 18, 2017 9:31 AM MST
    5

  • 113301
    So say you. Of course you do. That is what you do and only that.  Make excuses, transfer blame and point fingers. Thank you for your reply m2c and Happy Saturday to thee!
      February 18, 2017 10:29 AM MST
    2

  • 32529
    So rioting is better than chanting something. 
      February 18, 2017 11:40 AM MST
    1

  • Rosie never said that.. I can appreciate this question is very much on your mind, as you do keep asking it even tho no one is suggesting so. Perhaps you would be kind enough to offer your opinions and thoughts on the matter?  That way we can all share in the discussion regarding your perspectives on rioting.:)
      February 18, 2017 12:08 PM MST
    0

  • I heard worse than lock her up from Trump supporters... many times.. and bearing in mind I was objective... it seemed odd to me how much hatred Trump was able to whip up within his followers.

    Then again Trump inspires hate... 

    Just my opinion, a considered one, that Trump actively is still trying to keep his loyal followers hating.... it's what they know best...and it distracts them from what he's doing and it keeps them fearing and loyal
      February 18, 2017 9:35 AM MST
    4

  • 32529
    I hate no one. I do think Hillary violated the law...If the sailor who took a picture and stored on his private CPU then Hillary also violated the same law. 
    So are chants more hateful than violent riots and beating people for their votes....
      February 18, 2017 9:43 AM MST
    4

  • Hello m2c yes I know that you are of the opinion that Hilary committed a crime, as are many Trump supporters.  I am objective in this, it doesn't affect me either way whether she did or didn't but I do find it peculiar from an observer point of view why people think that when she was investigated at least twice but wasn't charged, (it damaged her campaign tho and helped Trump). If she were investigated and no charges were brought there are only two possible outcomes; either she was innocent, and that would be what we would assume given that she was investigated, or, that the American justice system is totally corrupt and defunct.. they are useless...
    Personally I'd think the former...  the latter is very worrying indeed and America is in big trouble if so... 

    Was the latter part a question? Are chants more hateful than... I've discussed this topic many times.. re freedom of speech.. the problem is that it's not as clear cut as people would like to think.. hateful words, for example bullying can destroy lives, it can make victims, (example a lady I work with has a daughter who is truly stunning, but because she was told she is ugly at school she believes that, and psychologically we KNOW that we are all influenced by other's perceptions.. e.g parents who constantly tell a child she is clumsy, stupid etc.. ) so words are NOT harmless, they intimidate, they cause fear, isolation, rejection, depression.. and deaths..  I had a Horrendous student the other day who brought along a VERY Big Russian man,.. IF she or he had threatened to kidnap my goldfish or kill my cat... I'd be scared... most people would.. so words can hurt.. 
    It wouldn't be so bad if words stopped at words either..often they don't.. when one says they want to go out and slash the tyres of the cars of any Hilary supporters, as I heard, then those words again aren't harmless...
    The ISIS radicalisers use words.. they incite hatred and it doesn't stop at words... 
    Beating for votes happens on both sides.
      February 18, 2017 10:02 AM MST
    0

  • 32529
    So the riots are justified? Riots/beating of voters does not happen on both sides. The Tea party never rioted. Never beat someone because they voted for Obama....
      February 18, 2017 10:09 AM MST
    1

  • Dear m2c please do not insult me in such a way.. do NOT please put words into my mouth. I would respectfully recommend you re-read my post and then hopefully you will see that I did NOT say anything of the sort. 
    What I DID do, was respect you in that I took the time and trouble to explain and give examples of how words can hurt and cause harm..  I DID NOT Mention riots or say that they were justified. I am sorry but I feel this is appallingly insulting behaviour from you. I would ask you please to refrain from such in future, it is undeserved and unwarranted. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at February 18, 2017 10:45 AM MST
      February 18, 2017 10:17 AM MST
    1

  • 32529
    No you did not mention the riots or justify them...They were ignored in the response. So I asked again specifically about them. 
      February 18, 2017 10:42 AM MST
    1

  • Well thank you m2c I am so glad you were not insinuating that I had said riots are ok.  Physical aggression is not my thing and is not my area of specialty I am afraid so I cannot do that topic justice.. I am more into psychology, sociology, sexology and psychotherapy... 

    So they riots etc. not ignored as such, just like I am sure you didn't mean to ignore the great lengths I went to to discuss hate speech and why that shouldn't be condoned, which was, after all, what the topic was about.  I trust you were satisfied and enjoyed my explanations re verbal hate and that's why you didn't respond on that. If you are an expert on riots please do feel free to tell us all about that topic.
      February 18, 2017 11:16 AM MST
    0

  • 32529
    No the topic is hate.  Personally I believe physical destruction is hateful  than saying put someone in jail. Bullying is unexceptable.

    I can say someone is a criminal and should go to jail (lock them up) with no hate in my heart whatsoever.
      February 18, 2017 11:59 AM MST
    0

  • Oh  but of course, my dead m2c, you can indeed say someone should go to jail and say it without an ounce of hate in your heart, that's theoretically possible for sure.  But then again no one was disagreeing with you on that..  There are still issues regarding the accuracy and motives tho behind that statement. as I mentioned, she was investigated, they either found no evidence or the American system is utterly useless and corrupt. You are aware, of course, of the possibility that there was no evidence, or that it didn't breach the law. You hold your views for sure.. but you would accept I am sure that you cannot know for sure whether she was or was not guilty - you weren't there, you haven't seen. 

    So this is now about semantics and pedantics.. language is of utmost importance to me.. accuracy is everything... so if we analyse this.. R talked in her post about verbal *hate* or  incitement... it wasn't just or even specifically about that particular comment but it didn't mention physical violence. I suppose one could well expand upon that and go off into another track by discussing riots and physical violence... but the point was... you were answering ME and I DIDN'T discuss riots either way.. so my point is.. that while you are perfectly entitled to go off in a tangent direction and talk about physical violence.. it was not really warranted when directed at ME., Perhaps in hindsight it would have been better to post your question in a post of your own under the thread rather than answer my comment specifically? Not saying you don't have the right to answer my posts.. just saying it wasn't directly relevant to me or my comment, and could be perceived as putting words into my mouth. 
      February 18, 2017 12:22 PM MST
    0

  • 7280
    Just a comment:

    I read a long time ago that guilty vs innocent was a moral consideration / judgment...

    While guilty vs not guilty was a legal consideration / judgment...

    It's always nice when they are congruent,; but if they may not be, it's good to remember the difference.
      February 18, 2017 10:35 AM MST
    1

  • ooooh lovely response Tom, just my area of expertise, thank you for giving me something I can really get my teeth into :) Technically speaking guilty vs innocent is not ALWAYS a moral consideration... sometimes it is.. for sure.. and yes, partly all laws are founded on mores and morals... however, once they become law they are no longer ALWAYS a moral consideration per se.. if a man murders another man, and it's not self-defence, and the law says that's illegal.. then you don't need to use moral judgement.. someone's already done that a while ago.. so this is now just a technicality... which is what you said re guilty vs not guilty.... Some aspects MAY still need moral judgement.. for instance, why did he murder the man, were there any extenuating circumstances? Perhaps the man continually bullied and belittled the other verbally... that can be seen as a reason he would not be held guilty... balance of his mind was disturbed by the bullying,... this buys back into the fact that words are not entirely harmless and we ARE physically and mentally affected by words and things people say...

    So yes, I cannot disagree with what you say... there is often overlap between the two... we are in agreement here i feel

    Interestingly someone can be found not guilty in a court of law but that doesn't necessarily mean he is innocent. just means there wasn't enough evidence to convict, or he had a good lawyer.
      February 18, 2017 11:24 AM MST
    0

  • 7280
    I seldom use simple bifurcation, but this was simply a first level comment on my part. ... (I occasionally write treatises rather than simple comments.)...

    I agree entirely with your continued parsing of the concept...  They do indeed overlap....  The problem is most apparent when we assume that not guilty speaks to the personal integrity of the man rather than possibly only the acumen of his lawyer....

    Regards...
      February 18, 2017 1:10 PM MST
    1

  • Yup. agreed. Personally I don't know whether Clinton was or was not guilty or innocent. It just surprises me that lots of people seem to think they do know... and claim it as fact..
      February 18, 2017 1:20 PM MST
    0

  • 113301
    Hate and fear. That is what binds them together and bonds them. Hate and fear. SIGH :( Thank you for your reply DdbTD. You do see how hopeless this is don't you? His worshippers believe he walks on water and can do no wrong. Talking to them is wasted breath, wasted words, wasted time. It will never change. Thank you for your thoughtful reply m'dear! :)
      February 18, 2017 10:32 AM MST
    1

  • You are right of course, but see I am a hopeless optimist, and I am someone who would keep right on trying til my dying breath to fight injustice. Yes, they cannot see what they refuse to see.. yes, it seems hopeless, i agree.. but I have to try .. it's part of the good people needing to speak up thing.. 
      February 18, 2017 10:37 AM MST
    2

  • 113301
    I'm 79 honey. I've used all my faith. I venture to say you are decades younger than me. I'm tired of the fight. You young'uns carry on. I have faith in YOU. I do. :) ((hugs)) Thank you for your reply DdbTD! :)
      February 18, 2017 10:42 AM MST
    0

  • I am not that young! 52.. and you are welcome to take a break now and then when it gets too much.. but you would never stand by and watch the country go to hell in a handbasket... Maybe you can't DO anything but you can still speak up :) and I think you will.. even if you need to let it go for a while to protect yourself 
      February 18, 2017 11:26 AM MST
    0

  • 5354
    It is what the propaganda have been teaching them for a couple of generations. Fear the Commies, hate the commies, fear the liberals, hate the liberals, fear the terrorists, hate the terrorists, fear the Ayrabs, hate the Ayrabs, fear and hatred together maximizing the effect and making people go along with whatever 'solutions' you want them to support.
      February 18, 2017 9:53 AM MST
    2

  • 113301
    Why does promulgating fear work so well JakobA? So do lies. I don't get it. Folks would rather believe a lie than the truth. They would rather be afraid than not.  What hope is there when that is what we have today? Thank you for your reply and Happy Saturday! :)
      February 18, 2017 10:34 AM MST
    0

  • 5354
    Sadly, I dont really know. I think there is a tie in to frustration about how the 'rosy future' that kids got promised back in the early 50'es never really came about. There had just been two major victories: ending the depression, and beating the Nazi's. So why didn't things get a whole lot better? Well they did not, and that seems to have generated a lot of frustration in many Americans. 'fear of commies' is one possible explanation for that ("commies sabotaging everything", etc).
    But it is all just guesswork, I 've seen no shred of proof for any of it.
      February 18, 2017 11:10 AM MST
    2