John Kelly and the Language of the Military Coup

John Kelly and the Language of the Military Coup

Consider this nightmare scenario: a military coup. You don’t have to strain your imagination—all you have to do is watch Thursday’s White House press briefing, in which the chief of staff, John Kelly, defended President Trump’s phone call to a military widow, Myeshia Johnson. The press briefing could serve as a preview of what a military coup in this country would look like, for it was in the logic of such a coup that Kelly advanced his four arguments.

Argument 1. Those who criticize the President don’t know what they’re talking about because they haven’t served in the military.

2. The President did the right thing because he did exactly what his general told him to do.

3. Communication between the President and a military widow is no one’s business but theirs.

4. Citizens are ranked based on their proximity to dying for their country. Kelly’s last argument was his most striking. At the end of the briefing, he said that he would take questions only from those members of the press who had a personal connection to a fallen soldier, followed by those who knew a Gold Star family. Considering that, a few minutes earlier, Kelly had said most Americans didn’t even know anyone who knew anyone who belonged to the “one per cent,” he was now explicitly denying a majority of Americans—or the journalists representing them—the right to ask questions. This was a new twist on the Trump Administration’s technique of shunning and shaming unfriendly members of the news media, except this time, it was framed explicitly in terms of national loyalty. As if on cue, the first reporter allowed to speak inserted the phrase “Semper Fi”—a literal loyalty oath—into his question.

Before walking off the stage, Kelly told Americans who haven’t served in the military that he pities them. “We don’t look down upon those of you who haven’t served,” he said. “In fact, in a way we are a little bit sorry because you’ll have never have experienced the wonderful joy you get in your heart when you do the kinds of things our servicemen and women do—not for any other reason than that they love this country.”

Kelly stood up there and pretty much tried to lecture everyone else on what it means to serve and that he and others that serve feel sorry for the rest of us. And that anyone who dares question anything they do is in effect a shitty person because, as mentioned, he served in the military so he's beyond question.
I have no problem at all with a general advising a clueless civilian on the proper way to console the widow of a fallen soldier. None at all.

That is not even in the same fucking UNIVERSE as a military coup, retard.

Did I mention anywhere at anytime that advising Trump was a bad thing? Did I mention anywhere at anytime that advising him was the same as a military coup?

If those answers are no, then my question is...are you talking to me?
 
"Nightmare"? You gotta be kidding. A coup, any type of coup is the current fantasy of desperate crazy angry left wingers. Listen to the crazy scenario they created in their minds. The angry left has been reduced to pipe dreams aided sometimes with real pipes.
 
Last edited:
One's having served in the military hardly puts one above reproach. In American history, the verity of that being so dates at least to Benedict Arnold. Arnold is not alone:
Benedict Arnold was overlooked by a congress, in favor of local pork, for several commendations and promotions. What happened then happens now.
Irrelevant. The point to which you responded, the net essence of Kelly's argument/justification, is that having served in the military puts one above reproach. As I have shown, having served in the military does not at all do so. Why one commits whatever wrongful or criminal acts one does -- be one in the military or not -- has nothing to do with whether the acts and actor are or are not above reproach.

Yes, it is relevant no matter how much you wish it weren't so.

Reply "is too" doesn't work. Sorry.
No, it does not. That tactic is called "argument by assertion" or "argument by repetition."

CC is renowned for this. Lol. Have fun. Obviously, you and CC don't fully understand a tangent or how threads evolve into subtopics.
 
"Nightmare"? You gotta be kidding. A coup, any type of coup is the current fantasy of desperate crazy angry left wingers. Listen to the crazy scenario they created in their minds. The angry left has been reduced to pipe dreams aided sometimes with real pipes.

CC and xelor are in their own little cocoon on this one.
 
Benedict Arnold was overlooked by a congress, in favor of local pork, for several commendations and promotions. What happened then happens now.
Irrelevant. The point to which you responded, the net essence of Kelly's argument/justification, is that having served in the military puts one above reproach. As I have shown, having served in the military does not at all do so. Why one commits whatever wrongful or criminal acts one does -- be one in the military or not -- has nothing to do with whether the acts and actor are or are not above reproach.

Yes, it is relevant no matter how much you wish it weren't so.

Reply "is too" doesn't work. Sorry.
No, it does not. That tactic is called "argument by assertion" or "argument by repetition."

CC is renowned for this. Lol. Have fun. Obviously, you and CC don't fully understand a tangent or how threads evolve into subtopics.

Wow, I'm renowned for this AND I don't understand it? Well, isn't that interesting.
 
"Nightmare"? You gotta be kidding. A coup, any type of coup is the current fantasy of desperate crazy angry left wingers. Listen to the crazy scenario they created in their minds. The angry left has been reduced to pipe dreams aided sometimes with real pipes.

Is there some illness going around that causes Trump bots to see things that are there? Or is this just how you deal with info now..by making it all up and yelling at your creation?
 
Before walking off the stage, Kelly told Americans who haven’t served in the military that he pities them. “We don’t look down upon those of you who haven’t served,” he said. “In fact, in a way we are a little bit sorry because you’ll have never have experienced the wonderful joy you get in your heart when you do the kinds of things our servicemen and women do—not for any other reason than that they love this country.”
Kelly is aware Trump has never served, right? :lol:
In the US Military anyway. He won't tell us about the Russian military.
 
Benedict Arnold was overlooked by a congress, in favor of local pork, for several commendations and promotions. What happened then happens now.
Irrelevant. The point to which you responded, the net essence of Kelly's argument/justification, is that having served in the military puts one above reproach. As I have shown, having served in the military does not at all do so. Why one commits whatever wrongful or criminal acts one does -- be one in the military or not -- has nothing to do with whether the acts and actor are or are not above reproach.

Yes, it is relevant no matter how much you wish it weren't so.

Reply "is too" doesn't work. Sorry.
No, it does not. That tactic is called "argument by assertion" or "argument by repetition."

CC is renowned for this. Lol. Have fun. Obviously, you and CC don't fully understand a tangent or how threads evolve into subtopics.

OT:
how threads evolve into subtopics

I understand quite well how discussions evolve, both verbal ones and written discussions. People engaged in discourse often find themselves inspired by something mentioned in the conversation whereby the result of the inspiration is an unrelated-to-the-current-topic notion. That is normal and happens all the time. Sharing the unrelated idea is also acceptable, provided one properly handles doing so.

What's the right way to handle sharing such ideas? Simply declaring that what one is about to share isn't related to the current topic. Doing so is nothing other than a matter of respect for the other parties to the discussion and to the discussion leader, and doing so serves to make sure the audience members recognize that one is not suggesting that the new idea one is sharing does in fact have some bearing on the actual discussion topic.
  • Verbal discussions --> There's no trick involved. One need only say something to the effect of "I know this isn't relevant to the topic we're discussion, but I want to mention that...."
    • If the terms and situation of the discussion allow for unrelated comments -- > One just shares the unrelated idea and the other parties to the discussion, most importantly the "owner"leader of the discussion will either (1) accede to pursuing (for however long) the new topic. or (2) they won't, perhaps by saying something like "let's come back to that later, but for now I'd like to resolve/finish -- or establish that we cannot resolve/finish it -- the discussion of the original topic.
    • If the terms and situation of the discussion do not allow for unrelated comments --> One refrains from sharing the thought and instead asks if it'd be okay for the group to discuss the idea upon the completion of conversation on the current topic. One way to do that is to simply say something akin to "Your remark of 'such and such' just triggered an idea, and when we finish with this topic, I'd to discuss it with you."
  • Written discussions --> The concepts and tactics are the essentially same as those one'd use in a verbal discussion (described just above); however, one must apply them with greater rigor and in recognition of the fact that parties to the conversation usually are bereft of all interpersonal clues that are available in a verbal discussion. [1] Body language, inflection, and tone of voice, for example, are not factors in written discourse; thus the clues and indicators derived them and that inform audience members of a speaker's tone are not available to be used by readers when they interpret a writer's remarks. Because those things are not part of written conversations, a writer cannot (well, should not) take the same liberties s/he may safely take were the discussion verbal or verbal and face-to-face.

    It's not that that humor, sarcasm, and other non-straightforward tones cannot be conveyed. It's that conveying them doesn't come for free, as it were; one must put in the effort to

    Additionally, in writing, particularly here and other venues where none or few of the writers are personally well known to everyone participating in a discussion, to have a coherent discussion, one must adhere considerably more faithfully apply the convention of informing readers that one is headed off topic, or one must take the time to develop and express the correlation between an oblique/tangential idea and the current topic. One must do that because people, try as they might, simply cannot consistently and accurately read a writer's mind; they can read only the words one puts to paper, as it were.
I realize that fully developing and expressing an oblique idea and its relationship to a given matter takes more more thought and more typing than it does to simply share an on-topic idea. I realize too that many people aren't given to doing so, preferring instead to write a "tweet" of sorts rather than an essay. The thing for such people to do, at least in my experience, out of respect as well as for clarity, consistency and comprehension, is to either (1) simply not their tangentially related idea, or (2) at least begin the post of the tangential idea by writing "off topic" or "OT" or something so readers know that what follows isn't relevant to the current thread topic, or (3) create a new thread where that tangential idea is itself the thread topic. If choosing the last approach noted, it might be helpful and appropriate, for the sake of context, to provide a link to the remark that ins

I'm sure you know as well as I that often on USMB, people make remarks that have nothing logically to do with the thread topic. For example, in a thread created to discuss the merits, demerits, legitimacy, etc. of, say, an Obama policy or statement, the policies or statements made by someone else don't have a damn thing to do with it. If, on the other hand, the thread is initiated to compare/contrast in some dimension one or more Obama's policies and/or statements with those of another individual(s) with regard to the same dimension, then, yes, what those other folks did/said with regard to that dimension is relevant.

So, no, I have no problem with conversations evolving. I do, however, have a problem with disjoined conversations and with insufficiently developed, and in turn presented, ideas and correlations that result, upon having read something, not understanding the entirety of what the writer meant and how their remark(s) actually relate to the current discussion topic. I also don't cotton to people injecting off-topic/irrelevant ideas, under the auspice of a discussion's "evolution." In venues like this, that's not evolution, most especially when it's done in the first 50 or so posts. All that is is a deliberate attempt to take over a thread and/or derail it. That's just discursively rude. Folks can and should indeed discuss whatever they want, but in the right place, the right thread.


Note:
  1. Audience members don't have to be so bereft, but few readers and writers are adept enough to punctuate and choose words (cognizant of connotation every bit as much as denotation) that together unequivocally convey tone. Both writer and readers must have an extremely strong command of the language to do that, and, even many native speakers simply aren't. One common manifestation of that is seen in how humor doesn't in most cases convey well in writing.

    Endeavoring to convey tone in addition to a basic denotation has a lot to do with why I often choose the "fancy" words I do, that is to say, words that some people here ridicule me for having used them. Those "fancy" words have connotations that more basic words do not. "Lie" vs. "prevaricate" vs "palter" is one such example. (See the synonym guide at the link provided.)

    Readers may or may not be aware of the connotation and tone of the non-basic words they encounter, but as a writer, I and others who have such words in their vocabulary are obliged to at least attempt to convey tone, that is to say, to attempt to convey as much meaning as possible. One way to do that is to use "picturesque" words. Another way to do that is to use more words. Sometimes, both are necessary in order to fully convey one's meaning. How does one know? The short of how is by mastery of all the rules and conventions of a language's grammar so one can aptly use them to convey meaning and by developing an extensive vocabulary, though if one is willing to use more words to convey the entirety of one's meaning and intentions, one doesn't have to have a Shakespearean vocabulary.

    Humorously used and sarcastic statements/words versus standard-meaning statements and words, even in simple instances, do not convey well in writing whereas those things convey quite readily in verbal conversations. To wit, sarcastically/sardonically, the saying "that might be a good thing to do" means" it is a good thing to do, whereas the standard meaning of that statement means merely that "whatever" may or may not be a good thing to do. We have in English no established convention that a writer can use to indicate whether, in having alone written "might," they are being sarcastic/sardonic; thus even if one intends a sarcastic tone and meaning, a writer should eschew using "might" in a sarcastic sense. Of course, if one adds a subsequent statement, perhaps something to the effect of "ya think?", then the sarcasm comes through. I suspect most people will pick up on the difference:
    -- "That might be a good thing to do. Ya think?"
    -- "That might be a good thing to do."

    As another example, consider the difference in meaning found in the following remarks:
    -- "Yes, right." --> Standard meaning; sarcasm is not indicated.
    -- "Yes, right. Not!" --> Sarcastic meaning
    -- "Yeah, right...not!" --> Sarcastic meaning
    -- "Right. Not!" --> Sarcastic meaning
    -- "Yeah, right." --> The informality of the statement makes it possible the writer is being sarcastic, but they could as well be using informal diction and intend no sarcasm at all.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top