Our neighbor is still trying to figure out how the Principle of Charity works;
see, "The Mueller Investigation" (Oct. 2019),
#843↗—
It's easy to make certain arguments within a pretense of tabula rasa, as if nothing is defined. Part of the problem with your perpetual thoughtless partisan toeing of lines is that you don't seem to know what you're on about; it's not so much that your understanding of history is awry, but, rather, that you don't seem to have any substantial comprehension of the history your arguments pretend to address.
There is a rhetorical rule called the Principle of Charity, in which one is to seek the least condemning explanation for what someone else says. In more functional discourse, this can be very important in understanding what other people are saying; in more particular politics, though, it's part of what people are appealing to when begging sympathy for those who require harm unto others. In your case, though, it's more a lack of anything to sympathize with. When measuring dysfunctional discourse presented nearly enough to on cue, and very nearly hitting its marks, finding that charitable pathway is tricky, because the most part of the range is occupied by a dualistic proposition of willful versus accidental wrongness, and after enough repetitions we're up to that razor insult people like to brandish from time to time about criminality and stupidity. Or, scaled to the moment, it becomes a question of how you are so well and thoroughly uninformed and misinformed you turn out to be. And if you're not just going out of your way to be a poo-flinging troll, then please understand that striking, pointed ignorance isn't much better an option. In either case, you diminish yourself.
—and subsequent discussion in
#856↗,
#871-872↗;
also, "The Trump Presidency" (Dec. 2019),
#3885-3887↗:
Briefly, since we've covered the Principle of Charity, before: First↗, finding the charitable pathway is sometimes tricky when the most part of the range is occupied by a dualistic proposition of willful versus accidental wrongness. It's not necessarily that there isn't anything to talk about; rather, the ignorance required to attend some discussions means some disproportionate share of the effort will be given to bringing the ostensibly uninformed up to par. Furthermore↗, as I suggested last month, it's long past funny watching antisocial know-nothing rightism get all self-righteous only to embarrass itself in the same breath. Moreover, it's one thing to be so far behind, but you're not even trying to catch up.
(#3609242/3885↗)
†
There comes a point at which a lack of culpability is ascribed to extraordinary circumstance. It doesn't mean a behavior isn't dangerous or wrong or inappropriate, as such, but sometimes people just can't help themselves.
When the Principle of Charity must entertain questions of competency, the particular ignorance Trump defenders seem to require in order to make their cases ranges well beyond unbelievable.
(#3609350/3887↗)
It's been on his mind, lately.
#461↑ above—
Good example of how the simple-minded don't utilize the principle of charity in understanding rhetoric. The clause is not phony, the accusation it has been violated is what's phony.
—doesn't actually work. We have other indicators of Trump's meaning, and, in the end, the coin toss becomes one between ignorance of or contempt toward the law. In terms of the Principle of Charity vis à vis Donald Trump, 'tis true there isn't much for redemption in the choice 'twixt stupidity and guilt.
This actually falls approximately in line with our neighbor's prior behavior, including misapplication of the names of fallacies. But, yes, the Principle of Charity has been on his mind in recent months.
