Are all Trump supporters racists?

[bruto]

So, although the million dollar a day figure is likely inflated, it appears that Melania Trump's decision to stay in New York is likely to cost the taxpayers a great deal of money. I wonder what nasty nickname the ever fair minded conservatives will find acceptable and dignified for her? Maybe we can find a way to be consistent and plagiarize Michelle's epithet.

 

[tyr_13]

Ah, okay I get your point now I think.

The big trouble I've found in discussions about any form of <x>-ism is that I tend to disagree with people to mere degrees, and not categorically, and (for me at least) those are the hardest arguments to make. It's telling people they have a point, just not quite to the degree they're taking it, as opposed to something like "no, homeopathy just doesn't work, period end.".

This was the complaint I was making in meatspace a couple of years ago : we (liberals) were applying the <x>-ist labels far too quickly and lowering the bar for what qualified. Making chimp noises when Obama was on TV was racist, but then so was wearing a Mariachi costume for Halloween. It's like ending every sentence with an exclamation mark - suddenly nothing is emphasized.

And on the flip side, the few conservatives I know were quick to dismiss any claims of <x>-isms on the grounds that liberals were too sensitive. They were right - air conditioners really weren't sexist (look that one up if you're unfamiliar), but that doesn't mean we should just let it slide when Trump talks about grabbing by the pussy.

Looping back I'd say that if a randomly selected someone is found painting another side incorrectly as being a racist, odds are that person will be a liberal (IMO only, and I'm willing to concede this part given evidence). Yes, some liberals call everyone they disagree with an <x>-ist. But that naturally doesn't mean that all liberals do that, or that only liberals do that. And that's without even touching on the issue of abstracting every issue and behavior into a simplistic liberal/conservative dichotomy, when in my opinion the more important axis these days is authoritarian/libertarian (the lowercase "l", not the removed-from-reality Libertarianism we run into a lot here on ISF).

Yup. Things that are spectra with lots of elements of truth in it are much more difficult to discuss than subjects with more objective truth involved. People tend to keep thinking in dichotomies, that if liberals call too many thing racism, that any given accusation must be false.

Funny that you should mention the Halloween costume stuff. We basically have a yearly thread on those, and it might be a helpful reminder to those who think me a partizan hack liberal to look those up and my stances from all the past years. Or the gun threads. Or hell, the Brown and Martian threads. Very few actually have simple political outlooks, yet we've become very, very tribal in the US with that sort of thing.

 

[Minoosh]

So you think "Mexican heretige" is a race? You don't seem to get his point of building the wall might mean folks from "Mexico" might dislike him.

Judge Curiel is not from "Mexico."

It has nothing to do with race and all to do about a certain country.

I'm not sure why this makes it better in your eyes, but he said he didn't know if Curiel could give him a fair shake because "he's a Mexican."

It's really splitting hairs to say this isn't racism. Police use "Hispanic" as a racial identifier. So do many individuals. Latino, mestizo, these are ethnic identifiers. There might be circumstance where I'd defend Trump, but this isn't one of them.

 

[Joe Random]

<...>

Funny that you should mention the Halloween costume stuff. We basically have a yearly thread on those, and it might be a helpful reminder to those who think me a partizan hack liberal to look those up and my stances from all the past years. Or the gun threads. Or hell, the Brown and Martian threads. Very few actually have simple political outlooks, yet we've become very, very tribal in the US with that sort of thing.

This touches on one of the main reasons why I confine my serious discussion primarily to meatspace : there's far too much 'straight ticket' online for my tastes. I get it when picking for whom to vote for office, as you have to pick one of a limited number of options and take their entire platform as one. But when talking about personal opinions, I find that on-line discussions are lacking in nuance or 'grey blends'. Too few people willing to deviate from the general party line on any given issue. Too few people willing to say "I support <politician-x> on most issues, but he's dead wrong on this one". I wish I could remember where I first heard it or what the exact wording was, but the idea was "If you can completely and accurately express your political philosophy on a bumper sticker or in a Tweet, you need to spend a lot more time working on your political philosophy".

 

[logger]

So, although the million dollar a day figure is likely inflated, it appears that Melania Trump's decision to stay in New York is likely to cost the taxpayers a great deal of money. I wonder what nasty nickname the ever fair minded conservatives will find acceptable and dignified for her? Maybe we can find a way to be consistent and plagiarize Michelle's epithet.

We can forgive that because they pay so much in property taxes.


And yes it is inflated, although, because they have to have so much security from crazy libs, costs might be higher.

 

[logger]

Judge Curiel is not from "Mexico."

No ****.

I'm not sure why this makes it better in your eyes, but he said he didn't know if Curiel could give him a fair shake because "he's a Mexican."

Meaning he has a small word war going on with Mexicans?

It's really splitting hairs to say this isn't racism. Police use "Hispanic" as a racial identifier. So do many individuals. Latino, mestizo, these are ethnic identifiers. There might be circumstance where I'd defend Trump, but this isn't one of them.

He is referring to the country itself, most people not obsessed with race understand that.

He also has the same war going on with China, would you like to call him a racist on that too?

 

[Mumbles]

Yup. Things that are spectra with lots of elements of truth in it are much more difficult to discuss than subjects with more objective truth involved. People tend to keep thinking in dichotomies, that if liberals call too many thing racism, that any given accusation must be false.

Funny that you should mention the Halloween costume stuff. We basically have a yearly thread on those, and it might be a helpful reminder to those who think me a partizan hack liberal to look those up and my stances from all the past years. Or the gun threads. Or hell, the Brown and Martian threads. Very few actually have simple political outlooks, yet we've become very, very tribal in the US with that sort of thing.

And the limits aren't so well defined.

Mexican Bandits?

Pimps and Hoes (complete w/ blackface - and the previous two imply similar makeup)?

Tribal Warriors and Wom-poms?

"Cultural appropriation" strikes me as both weak and unpopular, but when someone starts painting themselves up so their skin becomes a mockery of another race or ethnicity?

And just as importantly, who is doing the "battling"? Is it a widespread denunciation, or just a few college students?

Yet again, there's not easy answer here.

 

[Mumbles]

Yup. Things that are spectra with lots of elements of truth in it are much more difficult to discuss than subjects with more objective truth involved. People tend to keep thinking in dichotomies, that if liberals call too many thing racism, that any given accusation must be false.

Here's the fun part: consider "racist:" as itself a gradient, rather than an OR.

In other words, a woman whop clutches her purse, or not, depending on the race of the guy getting on the elevator with with her is, technically, a racist. But she's ultimately not hurting anyone.

Richard Spencer is also a racist - in that he advocates intentionally harming others based their perceived race.

Spencer is clearly far more important than the purse-clutcher.

 

[Reheat]

Assertion about "policies of the dems being absolutely unpopular" is hollow and baseless lie, since it relies on electoral votes and seats, not actual votes of people that you for some strange reason simply ignore.

You are apparently not American, so I'll forgive your obvious ignorance of the voting system in the US. You really need to inform yourself about that system prior to making such erroneous conclusions that are so wrong.

 

[Resume]

So, although the million dollar a day figure is likely inflated, it appears that Melania Trump's decision to stay in New York is likely to cost the taxpayers a great deal of money. I wonder what nasty nickname the ever fair minded conservatives will find acceptable and dignified for her? Maybe we can find a way to be consistent and plagiarize Michelle's epithet.

We could call her Melanoma. If we were 12.

 

[Mumbles]

You are apparently not American, so I'll forgive your obvious ignorance of the voting system in the US.

Nope!

If you wish to discuss popularity, answer for the popular vote.

 

[tyr_13]

Here's the fun part: consider "racist:" as itself a gradient, rather than an OR.

In other words, a woman whop clutches her purse, or not, depending on the race of the guy getting on the elevator with with her is, technically, a racist. But she's ultimately not hurting anyone.

Richard Spencer is also a racist - in that he advocates intentionally harming others based their perceived race.

Exactly. Yes, many liberals haven't thought through this, and a person who is at all racist is 'ruined forever'. They also tend to be the same ones who don't realize that 'discrimination' is in fact good and proper in many contexts. I discriminate on who I want to date, where I want to work, what friends I have, and many other things. It's discriminating based on things like race, sex, or sexual orientation for hiring and the like that's a problem. Discriminating against jerkward dicks who won't shut the hell up about the Steelers? No reason my discriminating against them as friends is bad.

The knee jerk reaction that there is therefore no validity to the problems of racism or discrimination is a huge problem though. I remember a conversation I had in a lobby area in college that kind of hits on this. I had related how I had objected to being called racist because I disagreed that white people must all pay direct (as in individual) reparations to black people, and this fellow basically said, 'yeah, and they called me racist because I think (n-words) are mostly criminals'.

It's almost like specific accusations should be judged on their individual merits.

 

[Minoosh]

He is referring to the country itself, most people not obsessed with race understand that.

Seriously, I would defend him in certain cases. But Hispanic is for all intents and purposes a race. We're on a thread talking about racism. If being anti-Latino in your book is not racism, then we're working with different definitions.

He also has the same war going on with China, would you like to call him a racist on that too?

I'm not aware that he's spoken of China and/or the Chinese in the same derogatory way that he has Latinos. He might be bigoted against Chinese. I'm not sure. I would define "bigoted against Chinese" as racist.

Is your position that malevolence aimed at a particular country cannot be racist?

 

[Reheat]

First, Trump was not discussing Chicago, he was discussing a nation-wide policy based on Michael Bloomberg's policy of mass harassment - apparently he was unaware of the fact that the president does not control all police - nor of the fact that black neighborhoods are not all hellholes where nobody has a job or education, and where random gunshots fly throughout the air.

Fair enough. Then apparently it was the implementation of stop and frisk in NYC that was the problem, not the overall intent to control violence intelligently. I might at this point state that if the crux of the problem with gun violence were Black and Hispanic men then I question if that's profiling. It's stupid not to try and fix the problem where and by whom it's being perpetuated. Quite frankly, I don't see profiling as all bad. If people who wear pink are causing the problem then people wearing pink should be the primary (but not necessarily the only ones) who are stopped and frisked. I don't live in a high crime area (thank goodness), but I did live in a Chicago suburb for about 5 years. The problems then pale in comparison to today.

Second, Chicago's issues are clearly local - they may have to do with gross understaffing of police, a mixing of older gangs caused by the recent shutdown of many schools, the decrease in anti-violence community programs, or many other factors Emmanuel's been pretty dismal overall. But I see no reason to think that a failed policy from NYC, applied by a badly crippled and rather corrupt Chicago PD, would do much of anything.

Whatever is causing it I don't know. But, it seems to me that Trump's threat to Emmanuel of bringing in Federal Law Enforcement is very sound as it's simply not being resolved by anyone or anything locally.

But none of this answers the original question, now does it? Again, when Trump advocated a policy of stop-and-frisk, which has been found to be both racist and unconstitutional, was it because the 90% of black and hispanic men harassed under this policy that were left go without further action were terrorists, or criminals?

(Or, as was found by a federal judge, was it simply that NYC police were targeting according to skin color - ie, applying the policy in a racist manner?)

Well, I don't know, but it sounds as if it was the latter issue, if it was a valid legal judgment.

Regardless, "racist" is a description - and a rather obvious one, when it comes to a policy that is applied according to race (yes, fine - sickle-cell or Tay-Sachs testing, and other ones where we could apply broad, medical tests).

Well, it seems to me that folks in local neighborhoods should be willing to accept some inconvenience to solve significant problems in their neighborhoods. From what I've read that seems to be the case.

I see no evidence at all that they're somehow criminal", though - and what "false narrative" do you think they're based off of?

You know exactly where the false narrative started. It started primarily in Ferguson, MO with the "Hands up, don't shoot" lie and spread from there. There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that Police shoot minorities more than anyone else. The criminal part is obvious considering the historic number of police killed in 2016, many of them ambushed. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to determine why.

 

[Reheat]

Nope!

If you wish to discuss popularity, answer for the popular vote.

Did you even read what was said? He's conflating the Presidential election with the voting for Representatives and Senators along with State Governors and State Legislators.

You do know they're different, don't you?

 

[Ziggurat]

It's almost like specific accusations should be judged on their individual merits.

Strange. When Hercules56 makes blanket accusations of racism for entire categories of people (ironic stereotyping), and Cainkane1 tries to refute that blanket meritless accusation, you jump on me for backing up Cainkane1's objection.

It's almost like the individual merit of my argument didn't matter, only your own bias against me did. Why are you capable of making sense half the time, but then half the time the blinkers just come on and you can't get perspective anymore? Trump must have really done a number on you.

 

[tyr_13]

Strange. When Hercules56 makes blanket accusations of racism for entire categories of people (ironic stereotyping), and Cainkane1 tries to refute that blanket meritless accusation, you jump on me for backing up Cainkane1's objection.

It's almost like the individual merit of my argument didn't matter, only your own bias against me did. Why are you capable of making sense half the time, but then half the time the blinkers just come on and you can't get perspective anymore? Trump must have really done a number on you.

You misrepresented uke2se's post to make it sound like he had accused Cainkane1 of being racist when he had done no such thing.

That criticism stands. I didn't have to make a comment about Hercules56's position for my criticism of your post to stand, but I did anyway. His post doesn't mean that uke2se's post accused Cainkane1 of being racist.

Have you considered that your perspective is at fault with some of these observations?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Evidence ?





How could you possibly know that?


Surely, stating your " Race " or skin color, is not part of the application...

By paying attention

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/08/airbnb-service-black-people-noirbnb-noirebnb

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/12/opinions/too-black-rent-airbnb-hayat/

http://www.npr.org/2016/04/26/475623339/-airbnbwhileblack-how-hidden-bias-shapes-the-sharing-economy

Nice to see that you don't need racists or racism to have serious negative effects on blacks.

 

[ponderingturtle]

He talked about his dislike and the unfairness of a "Mexican Judge" and somehow your side has morphed that into a racist. Hilarious!

Exactly no one can possibly be thought of as racist for thinking mexicans have no ethics. Next up it will be racist to point out the intellectual inferiority of blacks.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You mean she paid SS, her own private jet, the many hotels and staff it took for her to see the world?

And of course somehow it's racist, that really bolsters your stupid argument.

For mooching how about the expense to NYC to keep Trumps wife and kid in NYC? That is costing the city a million dollars a day.

But mooching is expected from a Trump.