Trump runs for POTUS/ Trumped Up! Part VII

cantonear1968 said:
With respect I disagree. Given the scenario it was an economic decision not a racist one.

Another hypothetical: if I have a shop that serves food and my market has a fear of catching AIDS from a homosexual employee that they stop coming, my decision is based on saving my business, not homophobia. At least not on my part. To be coldly analytical, the market has spoken.

No one is arguing the moral aspect of discriminating against a group. Simply that is does necessarily make someone racist or homophobic in the true sense of the words.
Click to expand...

I think the idea is that moral stances should triumph over any other consideration. I might crave a pizza - really want that pie - but will I buy it from a pedophile?

This is the old, old idea of taint transfer. Very deeply rooted in our psyches. It doesn't matter how clean the toilet bowl is, the water in it is still disgusting. Anthropologists call this "contagious magic".

No matter what my explanation, if I drink from the toilet bowl, I too am disgusting. There is no middle ground, no nuance, no possible mitigation.
 
Last edited:
Nate Silver has Hilary up to 87% today.
And the Trumptards are screaming that Silver is biased.
I agree. SIlver's definently is in the tank...for the Chicago Cubs.
 
dudalb said:
Nate Silver has Hilary up to 87% today.
And the Trumptards are screaming that Silver is biased.
I agree. SIlver's definently is in the tank...for the Chicago Cubs.
Click to expand...

A one in ten chance Trump will be the next president? Is that reassuring or frightening?
 
acbytesla said:
Both. Anything better than a billion to one is frightening. However before the debates it was 50/50.
Click to expand...

I'm having trouble recalibrating my worry-meter. At some point we'll all get to vote, right? And then I'll just have to replace all my worryware with updated versions. Gawd, I hate Microsoft.
 
eerok said:
Hmm. Let's try an experiment:

"If I believe that it is profitable to steal because those around me are thieves, and I do so on that basis, I don't think I'm a thief."

That doesn't look reasonable to me. You are what you do.
Click to expand...


Indeed. More to the point, though, if someone goes around advocating for the punching of babies, pointing out that that person might actually be neutral towards babies is nothing more than a dangerous distraction.

phiwum said:
If I do everything a Christian does, including attend church, but do not believe in the tenets of Christianity (although I act consistently with them), then I am not a Christian. Why not? Because being a Christian has to do with belief.
Click to expand...


However, to those around you, you are indistinguishable from a Christian and will be treated as a Christian. It is not a flaw of the people around you that this is so.

Your analogy failed precisely because racism is an -ism, while thievery is not.
Click to expand...


Vandalism is also an -ism.
 
Last edited:
An assessment of the possibility of rigging the election:
“In order to effect an election through impersonating somebody at the polls, you would have to do something that is incredibly impossible,” Barber said. “Number one, you’ve got to find out who you’re going to impersonate. Number two, you’ve got to be sure they don’t come to the polls. Number three, you’ve got to hope nobody at the polls knows you. Number four, you have to be willing to sign your name and risk five years a felony, and then, you’ve got to find about 5,000 or 10,000 other folks that can do it and keep quiet. It doesn’t make any sense at all.”
Click to expand...
http://www.salon.com/2016/10/22/tru...-well-vetted-election-in-u-s-history_partner/
 
marplots said:
I think the idea is that moral stances should triumph over any other consideration. I might crave a pizza - really want that pie - but will I buy it from a pedophile?

This is the old, old idea of taint transfer. Very deeply rooted in our psyches. It doesn't matter how clean the toilet bowl is, the water in it is still disgusting. Anthropologists call this "contagious magic".

No matter what my explanation, if I drink from the toilet bowl, I too am disgusting. There is no middle ground, no nuance, no possible mitigation.
Click to expand...

These are moral positions that are easy to take when it is not your business on the line, your mortgage in danger and your kids college funds in jeopardy.

Again, no one is making the argument this is morally correct. The discussion is if it makes youvan -ist in the true sense of the word.
 
marplots said:
I'm having trouble recalibrating my worry-meter. At some point we'll all get to vote, right? And then I'll just have to replace all my worryware with updated versions. Gawd, I hate Microsoft.
Click to expand...

Well, if you stopped using the beta version. ;)
 
acbytesla said:
Well, if you stopped using the beta version. ;)
Click to expand...

I'm a sucker for freeware, even buggy betas.

The polling is interesting, but are they anything more than entertainment? I mean, I'm not doing anything differently (nor will I) based on who I think will win the election. Should I start reading the "prepper" sites instead?

In a practical sense, it means a great deal more to me whether or not the local millage for road repair passes (which it probably will). That directly affects how much money I have to put in escrow for my mortgage.

I suppose, since I have to go and vote against that, I might as well vote for a president while I'm there. :(
 
marplots said:
I'm a sucker for freeware, even buggy betas.

The polling is interesting, but are they anything more than entertainment? I mean, I'm not doing anything differently (nor will I) based on who I think will win the election. Should I start reading the "prepper" sites instead?

In a practical sense, it means a great deal more to me whether or not the local millage for road repair passes (which it probably will). That directly affects how much money I have to put in escrow for my mortgage.

I suppose, since I have to go and vote against that, I might as well vote for a president while I'm there. :(
Click to expand...

I'd say for most of us no. It probably makes a difference in the DC real estate market for some, but not for me. I bet some investors are breathing easier these days.
There is a way to make or lose a buck on just about anything not that I have a clue how.

Latest CBS poll has Clinton up 50 to 38. While I believe it will be closer, I'd be ecstatic over that kind of repudiation of Trump and what he stands for. That will really make me feel proud of my fellow Americans.
 
acbytesla said:
I'd say for most of us no. It probably makes a difference in the DC real estate market for some, but not for me. I bet some investors are breathing easier these days.
There is a way to make or lose a buck on just about anything not that I have a clue how.

Latest CBS poll has Clinton up 50 to 38. While I believe it will be closer, I'd be ecstatic over that kind of repudiation of Trump and what he stands for. That will really make me feel proud of my fellow Americans.
Click to expand...


Did we ever figure that out?
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
However, to those around you, you are indistinguishable from a Christian and will be treated as a Christian. It is not a flaw of the people around you that this is so.
Click to expand...

I don't see any reason to distinguish between discrimination motivated by racism and discrimination motivated by profit. It is the act that society is concerned with, and so it is discrimination which we legislate against and not racism.

In other words, I don't think that I disagree that we ought to treat people according to their behavior. Nonetheless, strictly speaking, a discriminating landlord may not be racist.



Vandalism is also an -ism.
Click to expand...

Good point, I was mistaken in believing that "-ism" always related to belief or theory. But, racism is nonetheless about one's beliefs, prejudices, etc., and only derivatively about action. The profit-driven discriminatory landlord is a bad person, but he is not a racist unless he holds racist beliefs.

ETA: Seems that the second definition of racism from WordNet is different than the definition I had in mind.

1: the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically
superior to members of other races
2: discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another
race [syn: racism, racialism, racial discrimination]

Clearly, I had definition (1) in mind, but definition (2) is completely consistent with calling our landlord racist.
 
Last edited:
Molinaro said:
I know that was not the point you were addressing. I was pointing out that you were missing the point that was being made.
Click to expand...

That's a stupid point, then. It's one more way to avoid any sort of critical thinking or consideration of nuance. Let's lump all people in this group as one and judge them as such, even though they haven't done anything wrong, and may have pretty good reasons for thinking as they do.

It's childish and beneath the purported higher standards of this forum.
 
phiwum said:
No, Tony, it doesn't.

It means that you find the racist candidate the better option in this election, even though you may find racism abhorrent.

Being "ok with racism" means that racism doesn't bother you. Voting for the racist candidate does not entail that racism doesn't bother you.
Click to expand...

This bears repeating. I live in Quebec, and several of our provincial parties have as a stated goal the independance of the province from Canada. I don't support that, but I usually end up voting for one of them because A) the rest of the platform fits my own views and B) no way in hell are they going to ever achieve that goal. Voting for them doesn't mean I support independance even if that's part of their platform.

Tony, your contention that it does means that you simply don't understand the nuances involved.
 
quadraginta said:
Trump is blowing the dog whistle.

Who are the dogs that come running when he whistles?

How would he get into office, if not for those dogs?
Click to expand...

Other whistles, other dogs. It's a big tent, full of blissful whistling.



ETA: I know that last bit doesn't make sense, but I was compelled by the lyrical nature of the pairing. When you spot that in my novel, you can say, "Hey! I remember when Marplots puked that one out. Way back before Trump was president."
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
The evidence supports the conclusion he's an overt racist pretending his proverbial one black friend makes him not a racist...
Click to expand...


How would you know Trump is friendly with just one black person. Hershel Walker, Don King, others would dispute that.

Serious question: What evidence is there that supports Trump being an overt racist.

ETA - If you're talking about a racist attitude towards Hispanics that's understandable though I don't happen to really agree. I think Trump is more of an elitist than a racist.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom