The way she spoke to multiple audiences in the same answer was masterful. She would start by addressing the camera and the American people about something substantive, then turn directly to Trump and bait him with something she knows he won’t be able to ignore, by looking straight at him and saying stuff like “military leaders who worked for you have told me that you are a disgrace.” So. Damn. Good. And he refused to make eye contact with her, which says a lot.
I’m not sure if people realize how hard it is to pull something like that off, especially to a person who leans on racist/misogynistic/violent rhetoric.
Yeah, I realized pretty quickly she was speaking to as large an audience as she could. It’s why she didn’t get specific on some things I would have liked. But that didn’t matter because I can read and was able to look it up, and her policy is nuanced and effective. She expressed things in a way that was accessible to those who “aren’t political” or are undecided. That was the correct target audience.
It’s almost like she was a prosecutor who is used to handling all kinds of dark characters.
If you listen carefully, her Prosecutor voice came out. She said very specific key words just for him to latch on to.
This was a masterclass in baiting.
A master baiter, if you will.
Oh she jerked hard and he came on command
What the fuck is this racist bullshit? Trump is a racist, but we teach 2 year olds that two wrongs doesn’t make a right.
Is it racist to identify the elevated white male privilege, compounded by spoiled child syndrome? I don’t think so. I’m a white male and don’t find this in any way racist against me. Hits the mark in my opinion on why many of my fellow white male men are duped into maga bullshit.
Communication scholar Paul Elliott Johnson argues that Trump’s brand of demagoguery is “defined by a reliance on victimized, White, toxic masculinity.” Some scholars have focused on how this rhetorical strategy appeals to men who are “secretly insecure about their manhood,” as The Washington Post reported in 2018.
Trump’s own white masculine insecurity was on clear display throughout his debate against Harris. It was a different type of pathological masculinity than the aggressive and aggrieved toxic masculinity Trump perfected as MAGA stagecraft.
Trump’s performance in the debate illustrates why insecure white masculinity should be disqualifying for a presidential candidate. When triggered, it short circuits the candidate’s strategic thinking and elicits demagogic and dehumanizing arguments.
Do you think this kind of rhetoric
- promotes unity or
- stokes divisiveness?
Read further down in other comments, but:
- It’s important to identify the problem.
- It’s important to identify the target audience of this piece.
- The crowd that this article is referring to isn’t reading an editorial editorial piece from The Conversation.
- This is thus mainly internal dialogue pointing to an example of the problem.
- How we convey the problem to those ensared by it is a totally separate thing.
- divisive for them; unifying for us, and helps the occasional apathetic bystander identify the bullshit before they themselves are ensared by it.
I don’t think it’s racist against me but it’s still fucking stupid and not at all the correct thing to take away.
Why is it stupid and what is the correct takeaway?
Also a white man. While I don’t find this wording racist, I do think it makes an implicit association between white masculinity and negative character traits. This is effective when used as a critical lens by which to examine people like trump and the maga movement, because in those instances, the association is accurate. That being said, I do find that this kind of discourse on a broader scope is unproductive and I can certainly understand why one would perceive it as inflammatory. If we as white men are serious about defeating toxic masculinity, increased toxicity is unlikely to be an effective strategy. I believe it would be far more effective for us to focus our energy on reclaiming the concept of masculinity by endorsing and promoting white men who use their power in society to stand up for those less privileged than themselves. We also can’t rely on media outlets to do it for us, it’s a thing we need to own.
Well said and fair points. Ultimately I can agree that this entire article could be written as-is but for the exclusion of white. No doubt toxic masculinity is a problem. And no doubt there a considerable amount of white privilege; though the two probably should be separated as opposed to conjoined in discussion. Trump is a spoiled, silver-spooned manchild whose position has come about through a considerable degree of white privilege. Though as you said, one must be careful to narrow the scope of the conversation. That strictly applies to him, and probably should not be generalized more broadly.
Whereas toxic masculinity is more widespread and certainly not unique to white men (although in the moment under the MAGA banner and the audience of Jordan Peterson or Joe Rogan, it just so happens to predominantly be this group). I’ve read several articles about how inroads are being made with hispanic and black young male groups just the same — again, due to right-wing propaganda making inroads.
This where Walz could come in and why the VP Debate may be a bigger deal than many people realize. Walz has the capacity to do just as you said and project a certain male confidence. In his speech just yesterday he explicitly said, “Don’t mistake kindness for weakness.” If he carries through with this message as a military veteran and as a coach who can speak the frat bro language… Well, it may resonate with some and bring some back.
Well said to you as well. I agree that Tim Walz is a stellar example of the kind of masculinity I think we should be promoting. His VP candidacy has me so hopeful for a future where men like him are really able to reshape the narrative to one where being a strong man means being a respected and dependable ally.
Thank you, you said it well. I agree wholeheartedly.
Academics are different than reality, and the reality is that using this kind rhetoric is going to incite people to come out and fight for people like trump – this is fuel on the fire. Do you want the world to burn down so you can be right or do you want to accept that things aren’t perfect but the world still functions?
Let’s not kid ourselves…This article isn’t being read by Trump supporters or even fence sitters. It merely identifies the problem; it doesn’t prescribe a method of outreach.
It’s not the article I’m talking about, it’s just the general conversation. Trump should be in jail but trying to get everyone to talk about things like white privilege has pulled off enough of the population to somehow keep as an actual presidential candidate.
She played his ass like neon orange ten cent kazoo. With a giant button on top labeled “Insecurity Complex”. Little wonder that he’s chickening out of further debates now. Though, I expect he’ll make a lot of noise about doing a debate on Fox. Or Newsmax. Or maybe on RT, live from Moscow.
Sucks to suck Donnie.
*his insecure orange masculinity.
I don’t know what white has to do with his ego. A lot of white people can’t relate to him. I’m not white, just the headline wants to bait you.
Damn she’s doing it again!
I thought we were past this type of rhetoric?
No, you will categorize people by color.
If you refuse, you are raci… Wait…
Are you kidding? We are one more headline away from saving the fucking world bro
she didn’t bait him, she criticized him. Something republican media doesn’t do.
The Conversation - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Conversation:
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Very High - Australia
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
