A Pattern

While listening to the debate last week, I did hear one line that I fully expected Big Left’s chattering classes to try to exploit: Trump noted that illegal immigration would heavily impact “black jobs”.

And that brought out the heckling class:

Do you notice a pattern?

It’s a diverse crowd of hecklers. Some of them are upper middle-to-upper-class media figures:

Or parts of the political class, either those who’ve made it…

…or are working on breaking in:

And some who just won’t go away:

And more who are attached to the system like barnacles to a ship that needs a drydocking:

Or highly accomplished professionals:

Or upper-middle-class academics:

Etc, etc.

Of course, it’s as selective as every other lefty chanting point, both in terms of their own rhetoric…

…and the fact that none of them are part of the group whose jobs are being taken by illegals.

7 thoughts on “A Pattern

  1. Remember when your teachers explained the difference between Dialectic and Rhetoric? Okay, maybe not. Maybe you were normal. Still . . .

    Dialectic is an exchange of logical arguments supported by facts and reasoned conclusions. Debate coaches love dialectic but normal people are not swayed by dialectic, it has no emotional impact.

    Rhetoric is using language persuasively and effectively. It must contain a recognizable element of truth to be effective, but it can also contain exaggeration to make the truth more forceful. Debate coaches HATE rhetoric but normal people can be swayed by it because they feel the emotional impact.

    “DEI means Didn’t Earn It” is effective rhetoric because everybody knows at least one Affirmative Action hire and grimaces at how that turned out. The statement is not 100% factually correct in every instance but we all know what it means.

    “Illegal aliens are stealing Black jobs” is effective rhetoric because it hits Blacks where they live. The more the Uncle Toms and OREOs (Black on the outside, white on the inside) protest that there are no “Black” jobs, any job could be held by a Black person, and Trump is just a hateful hater who hates hatefully . . . the more they’re ignored by the people Trump is trying to persuade – Black working-class people who see unchecked immigration directly competing with them and their children and don’t like it.


  2. So, the term “black jobs” is somehow a slur? I don’t understand. What is it with black liberals? Man, they can fly off the handle at the slightest – well, I don’t know.

    You’d think they’d maybe want to tone it down or just plain shut up given recent events that revealed an awful of black women in professional or government positions who are unqualified, incompetent, and/or corrupt as hell. I mean, why the heck else was the acronym DEI redefined to “Didn’t Earn It”?

  3. Bigman:
    I’m not much of a “me too” commenter. I usually only comment if I feel I have something unique to add to the conversation or disagree with something and want to make my case.
    I’ll hit an upvote button when one is available but I rarely comment when I agree with what’s already been posted – but this is one of those rare occasions.

    Your analysis is right on the money. I agree completely but in this case, I’m glad you said it first because you did so much more effectively than I ever could have.

    Thank you for the astute observation.

  4. Just for giggles, I took a look at Ann Lopez’s X feed, and it’s exactly the kind of propaganda I expected. Also of interest; she’s trying to make fun of Trump’s pointing out “black jobs” in the USA by referencing her position….in Canada.

    So evidently, geography is not her strong suit, which makes sense, as “logic” and “evidence” are not, either.

    But on the light side, if illegal immigrants took the jobs of Ms. Harris, or Lopez, or Ms. Jackson-Lee, or Gov. Moore, perhaps it would be an improvement in results.

  5. Pingback: In The Mailbox: 07.03.24 (Evening Edition) : The Other McCain

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.