Democrats Move to Ensure No More AOCs

[theprestige]

Let's pretend that Trump didn't mean the Squad, and was just misunderstood.

He is the President, being heard by the entire Nation

If he doesn't want to be misunderstood, he has to make the effort to be less ambiguous.

I one hundred percent agree with this.

However, we here participating in this discussion do not have to participate as if we are trapped by his ambiguity and misunderstanding his statements. If you can cut through the ambiguity, you should. It's not necessary to continue the discussion as if the ambiguity still hindered and confused you.

 

[theprestige]

Trump is either literal or metaphorical, depending on what's more convenient at the time. Kinda like the Bible.

One can say that Omar should literally go back to Somalia, fix the problems there, and come back to America to show us how it's done, without that being a racist statement. Calling it racist just because the principals are different races is exactly what I was saying about the race card getting played too much. Hence my default to the null hypothesis. Does the "go back and fix Somalia first" thing stand or fall regardless of the races involved? Yes. Therefore, not racist. Unless someone makes an actual argument otherwise, that isn't just begging the question.

 

[Belz...]

It wouldn't make any sense if she was from France, white or not. France's government isn't a complete and total catastrophe.

He wouldn't say it in the first place if she came from France, because unlike Somalia, France's government is not a disaster.*

Oh, don't put it past Trump, considering what he said about Germany.

But I have to give the both of you props for the effort of focusing on the completely wrong thing. We're talking about race, not country. It's not a half bad attempt at diversion, I have to say.

 

[theprestige]

This is not only pathetic but massively dissapointing.

I don't often agree (politically) with theprestige and Zigg but I did see them, along with Brainster, as the more thoughtful conservative posters on this board. Granted, when you have one-line bots, full Kool-Aid swallowing Trumpians, and posters more concerned with hating the entire board than making their point its not a hard field to stand out it. Nontheless, I would read their posts and sometimes they would have a point without doing any disingenuous gameplaying. I wouldn't necessarily agree with their points, but they were at least honestly and thoughtfully made.

I have notice their quality of posting has gone downhill of late, but hey, everyone has bad seasons. Not a sign of an issue.

But today? This thread? Wow. This is nothing more than gameplaying, technicalities, dodgerolls and dishonest debating that is absolutely unworthy of the people who were once at least able to make me think about my position. Now they are just playing for internet points and pathetic pwnage.

I'm done here. I hope one or two of these grows a sense of shame and actually realizes what they are defending, but I doubt it.

This kind of thing happens all over the forum all the time. But thank you for picking on specifically the conservative members. Your passive-agressive partisan shaming is not only pathetic, but disappointing.

 

[Belz...]

One can say that Omar should literally go back to Somalia, fix the problems there, and come back to America to show us how it's done, without that being a racist statement.

It might, were he only talking about her. He wasn't, and so it isn't.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which do you think is more likely?

1)Trump doesn't know that both "congresswomen" and "countries" are plural; or

2)Trump knows his fans will agree with him that all those brown people originally came from those "********" countries, even if they were technically born here.​

I think probably 3) he's referring to Rashida Tlaib as well.

 

[Belz...]

This kind of thing happens all over the forum all the time. But thank you for picking on specifically the conservative members.

Well, they're the ones using pathetic arguments in this thread. Why would he pick on anyone else? You're not making sense.

Your passive-agressive partisan shaming is not only pathetic, but disappointing.

"No, you!"

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh, don't put it past Trump, considering what he said about Germany.

But I have to give the both of you props for the effort of focusing on the completely wrong thing. We're talking about race, not country. It's not a half bad attempt at diversion, I have to say.

Who is "we"? Trump didn't mention race, he only mentioned country.

 

[theprestige]

1. As noted Trump wouldn't tell a white person to "go back where they came from." That is, again as noted, the point.

It's a bogus point, unsupported and unargued. It's just a begged question arising from circular reasoning.

Simply repeating the point does not actually counter rebuttals of the point.

2. I have zero intention of playing the "It's not racism, it's sparkling bigotry" game with you or anyone else, but yes while it might not be "according to Hoyle" racist, it would be bigoted if he used the same phrase against someone from France.

First, I think it's a mistake to casually lump all prejudice and bias together under the heading of "racism". If you don't think it's actually racism, don't call it "racism" as a shorthand for whatever you think it actually is.

Second, if it's not actually racism, but some other form of prejudice (partisan bias, national chauvinism, etc.), then why is your point - as noted repeatedly - that he wouldn't say it to a white person?

3. Again this is all under the "He was just talking to one person" fantasy, which he wasn't.

Now please do me the simple human courtesy of responding to what I actually said instead this time in your first response, not a follow up after 3 people near simultaneously call you on it.

I've been trying to do so. I'm sorry if I've missed the mark. There's been a lot of back and forth over the past couple of hours. Would you mind re-iterating one or two specific points that you think deserve fairer treatment? That way I can do my best to give you a clean slate reply, without drowning in all the water under the bridge. Fair?

 

[Belz...]

Who is "we"? Trump didn't mention race, he only mentioned country.

Ah, now we should take him literally again.

Have we not already mentioned that talking about sending people back to their country is the racist bit? Or are you going to ride that merry-go-round a few more times?

 

[theprestige]

It wouldn't make any sense if she was from France, white or not. France's government isn't a complete and total catastrophe.

To be fair, a lot of what Trump says doesn't make a lot of sense.

As a bit of rhetoric, Trump's suggestion that Omar fix Somalia before complaining about America is a good zinger. Politically it's going to resonate with voters who see Omar as part of the face of the new Democratic party. Realistically, though, it doesn't much sense, and is kind of mean-spirited. If Trump had actually invented mean-spirited zingers in political discourse, I'd be a lot more concerned about his deploying one here.

 

[theprestige]

Which do you think is more likely?

1)Trump doesn't know that both "congresswomen" and "countries" are plural; or​

Is this really so implausible?​

 

[The Great Zaganza]

One can say that Omar should literally go back to Somalia, fix the problems there, and come back to America to show us how it's done, without that being a racist statement. Calling it racist just because the principals are different races is exactly what I was saying about the race card getting played too much. Hence my default to the null hypothesis. Does the "go back and fix Somalia first" thing stand or fall regardless of the races involved? Yes. Therefore, not racist. Unless someone makes an actual argument otherwise, that isn't just begging the question.

No, one CAN'T say that, because people of America elected her to solve American problems.
That is the null hypothesis here.

Tell me when she becomes a representative of Somalia.

 

[theprestige]

Oh, don't put it past Trump, considering what he said about Germany.

But I have to give the both of you props for the effort of focusing on the completely wrong thing. We're talking about race, not country. It's not a half bad attempt at diversion, I have to say.

We're not "talking about race".

We're debating whether it's about race, or not.

The claim is that it's about race. The null hypothesis is that it's not. We're still arguing about whether the claim has been supported, or the null hypothesis still holds.

One other hypothesis is that it's not about race, but about country and ideology. This hypothesis also lacks strong support. However, it does have the merit of being consistent with the actual text being debated.

 

[Belz...]

We're not "talking about race".

We're debating whether it's about race, or not.

Masterful. Absolutely masterful.

You win 822 internet points. Spend them well.

 

[theprestige]

It might, were he only talking about her. He wasn't, and so it isn't.

Perhaps he thinks that AOC also comes from a country with a disastrous government, and she should be back there fixing it instead of here complaining about America.

---

In before "hurr durr yeah AOC is from America and she's trying to fix it!"

 

[theprestige]

Have we not already mentioned that talking about sending people back to their country is the racist bit?

I noticed someone made that claim in the last page or so, but I don't think we've gotten around to examining it. Would you like to do so now, or should we just accept it without question?

 

[theprestige]

No, one CAN'T say that, because people of America elected her to solve American problems.
That is the null hypothesis here.

Tell me when she becomes a representative of Somalia.

Obviously people can and do say things that are wrong all the time. It's wrong to say that Omar should abdicate her responsibility to her constituents in order to solve problems in some other country. But one can certainly say this. More to my point: One can say this without it being a racist thing to say.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ah, now we should take him literally again.

Have we not already mentioned that talking about sending people back to their country is the racist bit? Or are you going to ride that merry-go-round a few more times?

You have mentioned it. But it requires reading tea leaves. People make unfalsifiable claims like Trump would never say that about a white congresswoman. But there are no white congresswomen from failed states who are badmouthing this country, so we can't actually test how he would respond to such a hypothetical woman. What's really the important factor(s) here? You claim it's race, and maybe it is, but there are other relevant factors at play too which could also explain observations without appealing to race. Trump is not exactly above insulting other white people he considers opponents, and sometimes in some pretty nasty ways. So how do you actually know it's all about race? And why do you expect to be able to convince others who don't already share your perspective that it's about race and not something else?

 

[theprestige]

Masterful. Absolutely masterful.

You win 822 internet points. Spend them well.

Still trying to be civil here, Belz.... I'll happily take the Internet points, but wouldn't you rather be supporting the claim that it's racism, and not, say, ideological bias or national chauvinism?

Even Joe is backing away from the claim that it's "according to Hoyle" racism.