Why did the pipe boomer send one of his packages to CNN rather than Fox? Maybe he was working alphabetically?

Praxis: Are you claiming then that you know that Trump's rhetoric caused the bomber to send out bombs? If Trump's rhetoric was the cause, then how come only one person mailed off bombs as opposed to the millions and millions of people who listen to Trump and support him? How do you know that even if Hillary won, that this bomber wouldn't have tried to blow up CNN? After all, didn't he make a bomb threat years ago, long before Trump became president?

Are you claiming then that you know that Trump's rhetoric caused the bomber to send out bombs? — LD Saunders

No. Are any news networks making this claim?

I believe it's reasonable to claim that the president of the US has a significant degree of influential power. It's a fact that Trump has demonized the media, claiming that they're the "enemy of the people," immoral, etc., and just last week praised an act of violence against a reporter. See:



Also, various sources indicate a rise in hate crime crime since Trump was elected.

Given this evidence I think it's reasonable to speculate that Trump may have been influential in the cases you mention.

Praxis: Okay, so you think relying on a post hoc fallacy proves your point? Show me any scientific evidence for how Trump's rhetoric caused the bombings, which is a claim numerous people on major news outlets have been making. And how is it that so many millions of people believe in what he says, yet, only one of them mailed off bombs? That seems to be a rather suspicious causal connection.

Keep in mind too, I HATE Trump. However, regardless of my feelings for Trump, I refuse to be manipulated into believing something without evidence. And in this case, the act that was most violent last week, the gunning down of eleven Jews at a synagogue, was done by a man who hated Trump. So, did Trump's rhetoric also cause a man who hates him to murder Jews?

There may be a lot of hateful rhetoric out there, especially by main-stream politicians, and I certainly do not like that rhetoric. However, I fail to see any reason to believe that such rhetoric caused any of the violence last week. Any more than I would say it was caused by violent video games, or social media posts, or mental illness, or long-standing acceptance of anti-Semitism, etc. There are many possible causes, but no one could possibly know what the actual cause was because no one has even studied the issue scientifically at this point.

Show me any scientific evidence for how Trump's rhetoric caused the bombings, which is a claim numerous people on major news outlets have been making. — LD Saunders

I don't believe this is true. Can you show where such a claim is made?

We know, unless we are fucking morons, that my hate inspires and legitimises your hate.

{But morons are not actually big haters, by and large. Please try and remember that. In particular, mongs those with Downs Syndrome are very often more loving and social than the average.}

But although we know it, we spread our hatred. We enjoy hatred.

Just bite that bullet: we enjoy hatred.

Oh, I know, you are the honourable exception, but then you already understand - we enjoy hatred. We vote for it, we are excited by it, it makes us feel righteous. It justifies our privilege and explains our misery - It's their fault. You have to be incredibly smart to play this game, and we are incredibly smart.

It is incredible to me that people cannot understand that what is incredible cannot be believed.

Praxis: All over. Just click on YouTube and watch videos of CNN, MSNBC, and numerous political pundits. They have been saying over and over that Trump is responsible. It's simply something that they want to believe, but they have no evidence for their claim, and given the facts known, it is doubtful his rhetoric caused the violence. If Trump's rhetoric was the cause, then I would think we would have a lot more people committing these violent acts, because a hell of a lot of people have been exposed to Trump's rhetoric for years now.

Praxis: All over. Just click on YouTube and watch videos of CNN, MSNBC, and numerous political pundits. They have been saying over and over that Trump is responsible. — LD Saunders

If Trump weren't president then he wouldn't need to be responsible for the influential power of the position. But he is president, unfortunately.

And I did do a quick search and could find any such claims. I guess you couldn't either?

It goes without saying events have many causes in which case countless narratives could be used to argue for why any particular outcome is true. If any news outlets are saying Trump's rhetoric caused a particular event most folks should recognize that it isn't likely to primary (since we aren't all doing it) but rather a contributing cause. Whether or not we should hold Trump responsible for his effects is another philosophical question. He may not be responsible for what he is at all but just the unwitting moment of innumerable causes.

If a contributing cause is something like the needle that breaks the camel's back can we legitimately then say it's also a primary cause?

Praxis: Quit assuming nonsense. Jesse Dollamore, or some name like that, just posted a video yesterday from his site about how Trump's speech caused the violence. Numerous news shows say the same thing, as well as numerous articles that have been posted all over the web. The Young Turks, CNN, MSNBC, they all have been saying it, for days. If you are too lazy to find these postings, then that's not my problem, it is yours.

Not to mention you keep, at the very least, insinuating, that Trump's speech has caused the violence. With zero evidence to support your claim. You have actually proved my point if anything.

Nils Loc: I largely agree with you. I personally hate Trump's rhetoric, as it is hateful, and packed full of lies. I don't think any sitting president should speak like he does or behave like he does. However, that is a moral condemnation, as I am not able to establish that his speech caused any of the violence.

If I had to guess, I would say social media is a far greater cause regarding these violent terrorist attacks.

I'm also not saying that Trump's speech may very well be a contributing cause, like you stated. That wouldn't surprise me in the least. My point is that I am not sure how anyone can make such a claim now, given the evidence of a causal link not being demonstrated in any meaningfully scientific way.

Not to mention you keep, at the very least, insinuating, that Trump's speech has caused the violence. With zero evidence to support your claim. You have actually proved my point if anything. — LD Saunders

I've pointed out that the president has significant influential power. Do you disagree?

Also, I wrote:

Given this evidence* I think it's reasonable to speculate that Trump may have been influential in the cases you mention.

I didn't say that "he caused the violence" but that it's reasonable to speculate he may have been influential. I assume you understand the difference and that your 'made-up narrative' about what I said, and what "major news networks" (such as The Young Turks :razz: ) said, is a departure from the truth.

* A bit more evidence for your consideration:


The bombers van covered in pro-Trump images and some of Trump's divisive slogans. Can you honestly say it's unreasonable to speculate that Trump may have had an influence on this guy?

Praxis: Saying that the president has power is not the same thing as establishing that people killed because of things he said. And I note that the person who gunned down 11 Jews last week hated Trump, and so what happened there.

Yes, I can honestly state that it is unreasonable to speculate that just because there are pictures of Trump on a van that the person killed because of Trump's speech. Do you know how many people have similar pictures of Trump on their social media pages? You are basically saying --- I don't like what Trump says, so, therefore, I'm going to blame what he says on the killings. I, on the other hand, am stating, I hate what Trump says, and it is morally offensive, but I have not seen any evidence linking his statements to the killings.

I can honestly state that it is unreasonable to speculate that just because there are pictures of Trump on a van that the person killed because of Trump's speech — LD Saunders

I could honestly state that as well. Trump’s speeches are mind-numbing. I don’t know how anyone could listen all the way through one. And in any case, the bomber didn’t kill anyone.

Can you honestly say it's unreasonable to speculate that Trump may have had an influence on Cesar Sayoc?

"Predominantly I have been hearing how this violence is related to Trump's speech. Now, I am no fan of Trump, but, how is it that anyone can know that Trump's speech was a cause for these violent acts?"

You have a good point pundits are going too far if they're claiming Trump caused the violent acts. Who has actually said this? I haven't heard that exactly, but I can get how you might infer that from what has been said.

Trump's rhetoric incites passion in his supporters. Some of those supporters are racists, and some of those racists are sufficiently unhinged that these passions could spur them to unfortunate action. This seems plausible, and what I've heard from anti-Trump pundits is consistent with this. Maybe I've just missed it.

Are you claiming then that you know that Trump's rhetoric caused the bomber to send out bombs? — LD Saunders

I don't think we can make such a direct connection, and I don't think most commentators are attempting to. It's more a case of Trump using his high public profile to encourage and feed a conflict based social environment. He's poring fuel on the fire. As are many others, but he currently has the biggest microphone.

Regrettably, we are suckers and are falling for the whole scheme. Here we are, talking about Trump, Trump, Trump exactly as his plan intended.

Jake: I'm fairly confident Trump's plan is not to have me talk about him, because I despise him. I think he's an idiot, a fascist, a racist, a science-denying POS, a liar, an anti-Semite, a sexist, a imbecilic conspiracy theorist, a disgrace to the office of US president, Putin's little bitch, etc., etc.

Praxis: Quit assuming nonsense. Jesse Dollamore, or some name like that, just posted a video yesterday from his site about how Trump's speech caused the violence. Numerous news shows say the same thing, as well as numerous articles that have been posted all over the web. The Young Turks, CNN, MSNBC, they all have been saying it, for days. If you are too lazy to find these postings, then that's not my problem, it is yours. — LD Saunders

I just watch a TYT video about the "MAGA bomber" just now and they said it's a question whether Trump is at fault for the bombers actions. They say that it's a fact that he encouraged violence and present evidence of him doing so. I would expect TYT to be the least neutral of the "major news networks."



Also looked up Jesse Dollamore and found the relevant video:



Like TYT he shows how Trump encourages political violence but makes no claim that Trump directly caused the MAGA bomber to mail bombs. I expected him to be less neutral than TYT.

He makes a good point that if Trump doesn't understand the influential power of the president or if he uses it irresponsibly then he must be unfit for the position.

Praxis: You keep trying to have it both ways. You can't claim that they are saying Trump "encourages political violence" but "makes no claim that Trump directly caused the MAGA bomber...." Encourage? That's causation. Jesse is one of many who have been making this claim, with no scientific support.

Do you believe there is a point at which rhetoric and speech does in fact cause violence, and what sort of evidence wouod satisfy you on this particular of Trumps speech causing violence?

Im with you on this I think, Trump lies and talks alot of shit, but many times when ive fact checked claims made against him it came up short. Why lie about a guy who gives SO much real things to report? Its baffling to me. Do people not realize this empowers Trump? That its something he uses to his own advantage?

Praxis: You keep trying to have it both ways. You can't claim that they are saying Trump "encourages political violence" but "makes no claim that Trump directly caused the MAGA bomber...." Encourage? That's causation. — LD Saunders

If I encouraged you to insult Trump supporters the encouraging statements would be factual. Whether or not you insulted any, it would be an open question as to whether I was to blame for your actions, and that’s what TYT’s said about the situation with Trump and the MAGA Bomber.

In the Dollamore video he doesn’t make any explicit statements about Trump being a cause or that he is to blame, probably to avoid any libel trouble.

The MAGA bomber is a domestic terrorist. Trump has made many statements encouraging political violence. The MAGA bomber shows signs of being influenced by Trump and his divisive rhetoric. Those are the facts.

If a mob-boss tells an underling to go and kill somebody, the mob-boss didn't directly cause the death, but he deserves to be held accountable anyway. Trump didn't order anyone to kill, but he did encourage violence, and should likewise be held accountable - not to the point of deserving prison-time, but he absolutely deserves to be called out on it.

...we have been bombarded with all sorts of punditry on what has caused these attacks...

Predominantly I have been hearing how this violence is related to Trump's speech

...how is it that anyone can know that Trump's speech was a cause for these violent acts? — LD Saunders

My assumption is that there is no specific criminally chargeable relationship between Trump, or the NRA, or any number of far-right groups and the various violent acts. I believe that no one in the white house ordered the attacks in the manner that the Turkish prosecutors think that Prince Salman ordered the assassination of Mr. Khashoggi.

But there is plenty of reason to suppose that there is a relationship of influence between Trump's reckless, crude speech and the actions of his supporters. We have extensive experience in measuring the connection between speech of various kinds and behavior. Advertising would be just one of those situations where we see suggestion having concrete results.

Campaigns to convince voters to vote for ballot measures are another. We know that intensive canvassing, political messaging, and political speech can sway the public (to a certain degree) and increase or decrease voter turnout.

We know there is a huge difference between the speech of socially marginal groups (like the American Communist Party or actual Nazis, of whom there are not very many, and a president or House Speaker. For instance, Communists were outspoken in support of racial justice. The speech and actions of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson had vastly more influence when they were outspoken in support of racial justice.

So too there is a difference when riff-raff post hateful speech on their Facebook page (or alt-right site) and when the President says similar sorts of things.

Are there other influencers at work? Sure there are. The body politic always has pockets of bitter resentments directed at target groups like blacks, gays, jews, latinos... take your pick. Chronic economic hardship encourages rash statements. Political marginalization intensifies outsider status and outsider speech.

Hateful speech is not usually turned into murder, but it is actualized often enough to merit caution on the part of public speakers like the president.

President Nixon was an active participant in unpresidential dirty tricks. Maybe Trump is also involved in dirty tricks, but it would require an intensive Watergate style investigation to show that. In the mean time, his public performances convict him of being a very poor representative of presidential probity.

Why is it that we accept made-up narratives and why is it that major news networks, not just the conspiracy sites, bombard us with such nonsense that no one could possibly know is true? Would people knowing philosophy help to fight against these made-up narratives from being presented by major news networks? — LD Saunders

There was a long thread last year, I think before you joined, on post truth, which had just been declared Word of the Year for 2016, mostly on the basis of Trump’s egregious displays of mendacity.

I don’t think that study of philosophy per se would in itself be a corrective - put it this way, all that would be required would be the ability to study philosophy, like the kind of literacy and the associated reading age you would reasonably expect from a high-school senior or undergrad. Given that, then a lot of this nonsense wouldn’t be able to get started. So I think of it more of a failure of education, although that said, I imagine that would make any educators who frequent this forum wince. So, not their fault, really, so much as a crisis of truth and values in Western culture, generally. And much of that is because capitalist economics itself has no particular commitment to truth or virtue, but on the stimulation of demand and even of fantasy, for the sake of peddling a lot of rubbishy products. Culture is supposed to set its sights higher, but Western culture is in some fundamental way destroying itself. That’s what we’re seeing, I’m afraid.