Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the continuing recriminations following the recent massacres. The effort to blame the massacres on Trump reflect an ongoing effort to control speech by declaring certain words to be “triggering.” In this case, the meaning is literal.
Here is the column:
The final death tolls in El Paso and Dayton were not even established when the chorus of recriminations began. Several Democratic candidates like South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg accused President Trump of stoking the hatred leading to the shootings, while Senator Kamala Harris insisted the victims were the “incredible consequence” of the rhetoric used by Trump. Senator Cory Booker went even further, saying not only that Trump was “particularly responsible” and “complicit” in the mass shootings last weekend, but so is everyone who is “not actively working against hate.”
Many of us have denounced the rhetoric of Trump on immigration, the courts, and the media. However, there is a familiar ring to some of the coverage following the massacres that Trump is responsible for the shooting because the language he uses is “triggering.” Columnist Mehdi Hasan said, “The president may not be pulling the trigger or planting the bomb, but he is enabling much of the hatred behind those acts by giving aid and comfort to angry white men by offering them clear targets.”
There have long been efforts to limit speech as “triggering” to others. Colleges and universities have created “safe spaces” and implemented “trigger warnings” to protect students from opposing views or values. Faculty and students have demanded sanctions against those engaging in speech perceived as threatening or demeaning, including the poorly defined concept of “microaggressive” words. The result is a type of speech control that redefines censorship as merely “sheltering.”
In news coverage, “triggering” has taken on a literal meaning that Trump virtually pulled the trigger on victims by adding to a raging environment. It does not matter that a fair amount of violence is committed by leftist groups like Antifa. Such acts are often portrayed by advocates as merely “self defense.” The CNN special “United Shades of America” with Kamau Bell featured what Bell called the “redneck revolt” of gun toting liberals who are battling the “alt right.” Bell followed them to gun ranges and asked why “more white people” are not joining their ranks. Among the “good guys” featured was Willem Van Spronsen, who later attempted to firebomb an immigration center and died in a shootout with police.
Does that make CNN culpable in “triggering” Van Spronsen? Of course not. Yet it would appear from the coverage that Trump is still responsible for El Paso shooter Patrick Crusius, who referenced Trump and said “this attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.” It did not matter that both of these individuals apparently have serious mental health issues. It was the rhetoric of Trump that was responsible for the crimes of Crusius. It also does not matter that Conner Betts, the shooter in Dayton, described himself as a “leftist” Democrat who supported the candidacy of Senator Elizabeth Warren. He reportedly wrote, “I want socialism, and I will not wait for the idiots to finally come round to understanding.”
Trump supporters have been assaulted for wearing MAGA hats or overtly supporting the president. Protesters have shouted death threats outside the home of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. An MSNBC host told viewers that Trump was “talking about exterminating Latinos.” A new Hollywood movie, described as a satire, features the hunting of MAGA types called “deplorables,” the name Democratic candidate Hillary Clintongave to Trump supporters during the 2016 campaign. None of those stories led to condemnations of “triggering” rhetoric by Trump critics.
Few Americans will tolerate outright censorship. But 20 years ago, writers began to push an alternative way to silence their critics by limiting their words as “triggering” or threatening. They could claim they were not censoring a viewpoint, only the words used to express it. Yet the result is the same in curtailing what others say. The concept of “triggering” language has become so mainstream today that news hosts now nod in silent acceptance when guests denounce the use of common terms.
On “Meet the Press” last weekend, Eddie Glaude, Princeton professor of African American studies, declared the very use of the term “illegal immigrant” may have caused these shootings. He said, “You set the stage for people who are even more on the extreme to act violently.” Glaude, who previously called the immigration policies of Trump “terrorism,” interrupted another guest, who was noting that laws on the books make such immigration illegal. “No human being is illegal!” Glaude declared.
For years, activists tried to shame others into dropping any reference to the illegal status of some immigrants by claiming the term is verboten. It does not matter that the term appears in laws and has been routinely used by the Supreme Court, including decisions by such liberal icons as William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, and John Paul Stevens. It is now “triggering” language and, according to Glaude, may actually cause massacres.
Even expressions of empathy can be considered “triggering.” After the shootings, Trump condemned the violence and white supremacy, expressed sympathy for the victims, and ordered all American flags to fly at half mast until August 8. Frank Figliuzzi, an NBC News national security contributor, claimed the flag order was “triggering” because the date, 8/8, could be viewed as a reference to 88, which could be a reference to HH, the eighth letter in the alphabet, which could be viewed as a salute to “Heil Hitler.” Thus, Trump unwittingly or wittingly signaled neo-Nazis.
Figliuzzi expressed shock, “No one is thinking about this. No one is giving him the advice. Or he is rejecting the advice.” There is another possibility that “no one is thinking about this” because it is perfectly insane. More importantly, what Figliuzzi refers to as the “little things” often leads to the limiting of a big thing called “free speech.” That some deranged neo-Nazi would celebrate the coincidence of flags being reraised on 8/8 does not mean that we should all change our actions or speech accordingly.
Trump did not help himself with disastrous visits to El Paso and Dayton, where he was denounced for such moments as giving a “thumbs up” in a photo with an orphaned baby and bragging about how big his crowds were at a rally. He then reportedly complained about the lack of good press out of the trip. However, it ultimately did not matter what he said because his very presence was the trigger. Catherine Wicker, executive president of the Texas College Democrats, said he had “no business” visiting Texas because “what he says to people of color is triggering.”
There is no sense of hypocrisy in any of this for those who use shootings to score political points by denouncing others for doing the same thing. It is inevitable that some will follow massacres like political carpetbaggers to make easy gains. Yet none of these gun triggers were pulled, literally or figuratively, by Trump or Warren or Fox or CNN. We live in an age of rage, however, there remains a big difference between rage and a rampage.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
If we did not have Catholics we would not have Mass and thence no Mass Shootings.
I worked as a lawyer for mental patients in a state maximum security hospital (prison). We had a guy who had strapped a bomb on a man’s head and a wire to the bomb to a push button in his hand. He was trying to get the guy to talk. When asked in court why he had done this the patient said: “I did it on December 7th– a day which will live in infamy!”
Now some right then blamed FDR for the behavior while some of us said that he had been called psychotic.
I got him out, in probate court on a civil case not the original criminal case, on a day which was December 7th. I sort of planned it that way. When we were walking out and the judge was at the bench in ears range, my client said: December 7th. A day which will live in infamy.”
Trump is about as responsible as FDR for this guy’s head bombing behavior. He was alive back then and although my client never heard him, Trump was blathering about bad workers in a Trump hotel.
Blame Trump! Go back to the dump if your name is Booker. We will book you in the morning.
Controlling the Conduct of a Chief Magistrate has nothing to do with controlling speech, it has everything to do with being represented in a manner consistent with the institution which the Chief Magistrate Represents, The Union, and it’s the Union’s desegregation to determine if the Chief Magistrate is in fact portraying their values in a manner they approve of, if not, it is the Right of the Union to remove and replace the Chief Magistrate with a Representative which does portray their Values!
” … it’s the Union’s desegregation to determine if the Chief Magistrate is in fact portraying their values in a manner they approve of, if not, it is the Right of the Union to remove and replace the Chief Magistrate with a Representative which does portray their Values!”
*********************
I do love the mindless drivel but what exactly is the “Union’s desegregation”? And who or what is the “Union,” for that matter? The States? The Judiciary and the Legislative Branch? One or the other or both? The AFLCIO?
Wow, you do have issues! Yes it is a typo, and everyone reading it should understand by context that the intended word is “discretion”, and if you don’t know what the Union is, I Definitely can’t help you!
The Union is the States as they are assembled in Congress to Govern Together as Equals. I do understand now why you struggle with how our Government is supposed to be assembled and how it should function! By the way, the Union is the Supreme Authority in our Government, Not The President, or the President’s assembled administration, and Definitely Not The Parties.
Here’s a link to my explanation of republican Government, suit yourself, I’m not trying to teach you anything, which would be impossible as well as a waste of time.
https://newfederalistpapersdotblog.wpcomstaging.com/2019/08/12/a-republican-form-of-government-2/
I would suggest reducing your writing to a level that a 9 year old can understand.
Partly because a large portion of people can not grasp more sophisticated writing,
But mostly because you are not capable of communicating clearly in more elevated language.
I do not think anyone here is clear as to what you mean by “the union”
But I would agree with you that you probably can not help us understand.
“The Union is the States as they are assembled in Congress to Govern Together as Equals.”
1), there is no such thing. The states are not assembled in congress to govern together as equals.
First the states are not equals in congress. Next while the states have a voice in the federal government they are NOT the only voice.
2). your “Union” as described violates the social contract. The Declaration of indepedence is pretty well written, it does a pretty good job of explaining the purpose of government and where its power derives from.
You don’t get what Congress is, if you read any document from the Declaration of Independence to all the documents that leave our current Congress you will find, The United States, in Congress Assembled! And if you understand anything about republican Government then you would know that a Confederated Republic is formed when smaller republics, the States, join together to form a larger republic, which is Confederation not Consolidation. And that makes the States the members of the Union, and therefore the States are the Members of Congress that results from their Confederation. The States are Equal because of their Equal Suffrage in the Senate, which is the Governing institution with concurrence over all Laws and all Treaties, meaning everything which concerns our Country as a Nation.
Sorry, if you can’t read and comprehend on the level that I write, that’s your problem!
The “Cheif Magistrate” would be Justice Roberts. The judiciary and the executive are distinct.
Regardless, your right/power to be represented as you wish is limited to your vote and the constraints within the constitution.
It is this way – because your views regarding the conduct of those in govenrment is not universal.
Each of us has our own individual right to demand that the conduct of those in govenrment meet our personal expectations.
But we do not individually have the right to get that just because we want it.
There have been 12 presidents in my lifetime. Not a single one met every single expectation that I have of a president.
Yet, I found many to be good presidents.
None of us are entitled to exactly what we want – not in the president, not in anything.
I must say that the level of Constitutional knowledge on this blog is terribly limited. The Chief Magistrate is the President of the United States of America, our Government was established as a Confederated Republic, that is an Indirect Democracy, which means that your vote only determines representation, only the States are members of Congress, not the Representatives and Senators which are exactly what their name implies, they represent the members, they are not Members Themselves, and the States reach Majority Consensus, not the Parties as a Bipartisan Majority Consensus, we are not entitled to what we want in any sense, the People in their Collective Capacity are Entitled to what they want signified by their reaching a Majority Consensus of the States as the Union, and we haven’t had a President that was properly elected by the Electors according to Article 2 Section 1 or the 12th Amendment in almost 200 years, and none of them in the modern era has understood the role of the President, meaning the President is only an administrator to manage the day to day operations of the Government, so congress can concentrate on other matters or recess, the President is not a leader, the President is not the head of Government, and the President is not a decision maker, if there are problems that need decisions the President must consult congress for their consideration, convening them if necessary.
The only decision making body in our Government is the Union of the States as they are assembled in Congress, not the President, not a presidential administration, and Definitely Not Parties.
The Federal Judiciary is only for conflict resolution between the States or between a State(s) and the Union, Not to make or interpret laws that are to be enacted. By the way, there is no such thing as the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial being Coequal Branches, in a Confederated Republic the Legislature is necessarily the Predominant Authority.
I think we should get rid of the letter H from the English language. It could never again be used to symbolize Heil Hitler. Tank you very muc for tis consideration.
You’d love The Wonderful O by James Thurber.
On “Meet the Press” last weekend, Eddie Glaude, Princeton professor of African American studies
Re: Eddie Glaude:
What I think: Eddie Glaude Jr.
At Morehouse, I had a conversion. I found a language for my dad’s anger and rage; I had a language for my own anger and rage. I was this black nationalist ; this was my politics.
https://www.princeton.edu/news/2016/01/04/what-i-think-eddie-glaude-jr
His net worth is $5 Million
https://networthpost.org/net-worth/eddie-s-glaude-net-worth/
Black Nationalism and religion have been very good for some Blacks apparently,
Curious that Blacks are the 2nd largest minority group in America. Hispanics are the largest minority group. Yet Hispanics just want to work and give their children through their own personal sacrifices, the opportunities they did not have in their original countries. No Hispanic nationalism, no rage, no rioting & setting their barrios on fire, no Hispanic Lives Matter, no Hispanic History Month.
Estoovir – have you heard of La Raza? They are a force to be reckoned with in the Southwest.
Shocking story, thanks for sharing.
Triggering and all of ways in which interest groups transfer optional behavior that may be of slight offense to serious harms that require government to coerce, combine with the transference of a high percentage of common good goals to legal rights, fashioning a semblance of moral and legal reasoning. When further added to the notion that income disparity can only be based on exploitation or the evil of not helping the poor, you have a tripple whammy of fallicies that, as usual in these matters, may have some surface justification, but are “overkilled” into vetoes of other takes on the pros and cons and tradeoffs of the imperfect human condition.
“reflect an ongoing effort to control speech by declaring certain words to be “triggering.” In this case, the meaning is literal.”
As if everyone is some kind of Manchurian candidate, controlled by other people’s words.
Trump republicans insert, with the use of systematic concept development, a set of interrelated concepts into the national narrative. Politics is the cumulative actions of making these concepts the prepotent (hot) personal constructs of voters.
As I have said to another poster – I would suggest you restrict your language to that understandable by a 9 year old.
Your audience is not capable of understanding more, more importantly you are not capable of expressing greater complexity clearly, and finally, the justified use of force aka legitimate government, has to be expressable in terms so simple that almost all of us can easily understand.
But more directly addressing your remarks.
No matter how complex you make saying it, there is absolutely nothing wrong with trying – and even succeeding in persuading others.
Under the obfuscation – what you are saying is that persuasion that you do not like is not legitimate.
You do not get to decide that for everyone else.
Again, the entire culture of the media, academe, and the Democratic Party is based on fraud, intellectual and moral.
There’s literally nothing to say to today’s commentary but “DUH”. We’ve all known this for years. Dems/liberals, with the parrotting Press, started this tactic in the 1980’s. For awhile, conservatives politely ignored it and moved on to take care of business, take care of their families, re-inforce the norms of civil society. Now many of us are tired of it and are retorting with the same smears and rhetoric we’ve listened to for 40 years. We don’t like it but 40 years of Dem/liberal smear campaigns have become too much to ignore. Their ignorance requires a response.
What I find interesting is that supposedly President Trumps speech has the ability to “trigger” people. His speech only fills the ears for what minutes and reaches how many? And yet, the liberals for some reason tell us that graphic violent video games played for hours or movie promoting gun violence or rap music doing the same, has nothing to do with shaping our youth. They don’t even try to hide their stupidity anymore.
Lets be clear – the left is trying to criminalize attempting to persuade people regarding values antithical to the left.
All of the offensive things that Trump says that are purportedly racist calls to violence can be found in the speach of their idylls.
Many of us may take offense at the expression of Kathy Gifford or Madona, or Johnny Depp, but we are not calling for them to be silenced. Very nearly the same purportedly racist remarks that Trump made regarding Baltimore are found in past remarks by promient democrats – including cummings.
This is more than just changes in positions. Absolutely democrats have changed their position on immigration over the past decade – and they are free to do so. Nor is it hypocracy to beleive something different today than you publicly claimed to beleive a decade ago.
But it is disturbing when you can not explain why or when you changed your oppinion.
And it is more than hypocracy – it is immoral to claim that those who today say the same things you said a decade ago are vile racists.
If Trump’s speach today is immoral, those saying the same thing a decade ago were equally immoral.
But this gets worse. In many instance we do not even have shifting oppinions over time.
Much of Baltimore is a disaster. Many many democrats including Cummings have said as much, and they have said it recently.
Because it is true.
What we have to day is the left calling people who speak the truth immoral, hateful racists, solely because they are not on the left.
Not because what they say is not true, because of who they are not because of what they say.
For the left Morality and truth have nothing to do with facts or reality. Truth has nothing to do with facts or reality, racism and hate have nothing to do with the actual content of your speach, but with who you are. or more accurately who those on the left perceive you to be.
You are a hateful racist solely because someone on the left has called you a hateful racist, and because you are not high enough on the scale of victimhood to be immune from such claims.
I am just wondering when old school liberals such as JT will be called ‘Nazis’ for merely supporting free speech.
antonio
The only free speech he seems concerned with protecting is that of the most powerful man in the universe. The rest of us should zip it and catch the melodious and dulcet tones as they issue from his orange lips.
F…. that. Trump is complicit in the El Paso massacre.
Prove it someplace other than your grand delusions.
Anon 1 – Not sure if you are a bot or troll but this forum is intended for intelligent, reasoned debate not nasty commentary or foul language that you are fond of. Maybe try another place for that.
“F…. that. Trump is complicit …”
Anon, your arrogance and your continuous hate filled rhetoric is the breeding ground for the ‘killing fields’ we are seeing in these attacks. Your age and family status separate you from these young killers but I would wonder about you if you were younger without the children and grandchildren already under your belt.
Criticise Trump’s (or anyone’s) speech all you want – no one is stopping you.
But if you make ludicrously stupid claims of racism or hate speach, if you pretend that ideas that you do not like are responsible for driving the heinous acts of mentally disturbed people, you should expect criticism yourself.
This has little to do with Trump. It has everything to do with the fact that you blame everyone you do not like for everything you do not like – without any evidence to support your assertions.
The history of the Dayton shooter is over the top left wing nut.
The truth is that he is just another mentally disturbed person whose broken mind found false justification for violence in bits of ideology.
In most cases – like the El passo shooter, or Holmes, or the unibomber or Joseph Stack, or ….
their ‘manifestos’ are almagam’s of left, right and personal lunacy.
To the extent there is any strong historical evidence of a tie between ideology and bloodshed it is between leftists ideas and murder.
Whether it is the french revolution or the Bolshevik’s or Mao, or Pol Pot or Castro, or the weather underground, or the red brigades, the strongest by far connection between violence and bloodshed – particularly killing others solely because of what they think, is from the left.
They already are.
I blame the Democrats for all of it.
JT once again focuses on nobodies for their alleged intemperate language while ignoring that of the most powerful man in the universe. To quote from his column:
“Yet it would appear from the coverage that Trump is still responsible for El Paso shooter Patrick Crusius, who referenced Trump and said “this attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.”
If he’s not, how are any of us responsible for our language?
You’re trite thoughts triggered me into getting a biscuit from McDonalds just now. If you’re not responsible, who is?
JT: “Many of us have denounced the rhetoric of Trump on immigration, the courts and the media.” Well, if it does not “trigger” violence, why is his rhetoric worthy of being denounced? You never state what effect his rhetoric has.
Voltaire said that a man is guilty of all the good he failed to do. Whatever may be said about Trump’s anti-immigration rhetoric, it doesn’t help….
“Men use thought only as authority for their injustice, and employ speech only to conceal their thoughts.”
****************************
Voltaire said that, too. Seem appropriate in this discussion on whines about “triggering.”
WIth inane reasoning like that, Warren and all Dems are responsible for Dayton, Bernie is responsible for the congressional shootings, and Obama is responsible for San Bernadino, Fort Hood, Orlando Pulse, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook school shootings and the FRC gunman and all of the killings of police. Their rhetoric and language about policy could certainly be tied to those, if you used the convoluted thinking you espouse.
SBG, to quote JT:
“El Paso shooter Patrick Crusius, who referenced Trump and said “this attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.”
Please reference the statements by Warren, Sanders, and Obama and other evidence which shows they inspired mass shooters.
The Unibomber attacked people because they lived on streets with trees in their names.
The Crusaders murdered people using christianity as justification, and through to the present many muslims do so using Islam.
Do we blame Christ ? The Green movement ? Islam ?
Have you read the El Passo Shooters manifesto ?
He was “pro Native americans” – should we blame the Navaho ?
He blamed republicans – should we blame democrats ?
His diatribe against big corporations could have come from Elizabeth Warren – should we blame her ?
He litterally parrotted Dr, Suess’s “The Lorrax” should we blame Children’s books ?
His manifesto is here.
https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/el-paso-shooters-entire-purported-manifesto
You have only two RATIONAL choices
Accept that he is a disturbed person and that his manifesto is no more meaningful than that of the unibomber,
or take him at his word in which case an awful lot of his ideas come from the left.
And he specifically disavows Trump and Racism as the causes for his actions.
You can disagree with what he says. But you do not get to pretend that his intentions are different from those he expressed without concurrently accepting that his “ideology” is a confused mismash and that he is nuts.
What you do not get to do is say – he really meant it when he said things that appear to be driven by the right, while pretending he did not when claiming to be driven by the left.
the unabomber manifesto was full of serious ideas that people have been reluctant to discuss, for the reason of his terrible crimes, but they read like a lot of typical environmentalist essays which don’t raise an eyebrow today.
but if I were going to dissect it I would compare this to Heidegger’s famous essay on technology, i forget the title, or, Spenger’s Man and Technics. I won’t waste my time, but I wish I could.
here is an excerpt from an essay someone wrote on terrible ted
https://kk.org/thetechnium/the-unabomber-w/
Kaczynski, speaking as the Unabomber, argued that technology is a dynamic holistic system. It is not mere hardware; rather it is more akin to an organism. It is not inert, nor passive; rather the technium seeks and grabs resources for its own expansion. It is not merely the sum of human action, but in fact it transcends human actions and desires. I think Kaczynski was right about these claims. In his own words the Unabomber says: “The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity.”
I say: murderers often have clever ideas driving them. they are still murderers regardless of how bright or crazy the ideas may be. was the biggest murderer of all time, Ghengis Khan, more virtuous because he just wanted booty? a lot of the hype over what is “terror” is just propaganda
when AGI comes, people may look back on Kaczinski as a prophet. we will see, I hope to live that long that I too can be a slave of the coming cybernetic overlord
John Say – I do not remember a connection between the Unibomber and street names. Do you have a source for that?
Good morning Chicago! 40 shot, 2 dead. Yah, that’s Trumps fault!
Yeah gun control works great for criminals.
Can’t we all just come together as a community, Commie Democrats & the rest of us normal Americans & donate some money to get these shooters in Chicago some time & training at a gun range.
I mean look, every weekend it’s the same with Chicago, Baltimore, LA, DC, etc…, lots of people shot damn few dying.
The take a look at Dayton/El Paso , I think Dayton was 30-40 seconds & 22 dead…. etc.
Just maybe Big Pharma’s SSRI serotonin re-uptake inhibitors do help in making better Mass Shooters? Sarc off
Violation of any law is Illegal.
“ Glaude, who previously called the immigration policies of Trump “terrorism,” interrupted another guest, who was noting that laws on the books make such immigration illegal. “No human being is illegal!” Glaude declared.”
*************
The correct and appropriately civil response to our speech muzzling professor on MTP was “Shut up, Glaude. You’re the problem, not the words.” Nothing “triggers” a ivory tower SJW like some well-deserved public disrespect.
Your wandering prevarications don’t change the fact that the President’s office did indeed load the guns in El Paso and Dayton.
ND:
I love a bad metaphor. Did Lieawatha fill the quiver for Dayton, too? Silly SJW.
mespo727272
I love when ND posts – perfect insight into both the intellect and the mindset of Pinkos.
Next up, Red Flag Laws for First Amendment.
10 day wait period to speak out in any way shape or form.
First Amendment Rights removed if speech does not pass background check, i.e. person has challenged or insulted government, government agencies and or government employees/officials in any way shape or form before.
Jail time if repeatedly speaks unsanctioned, non government approved speech
The Google Gestapo and perpetually triggered hyper emotional mentally unhinged freaks will be the judge and jury.
Like all Laws currently on the books, the Red Flag Speech Laws will not apply to the left.