Merged How Trump has Emboldened Bigots, Racists and Nazis

[Belz...]

Racism is emotional and not based on reason

Can't it be based on erroneous data or some dispassionate perspective? I would think so.

 

[jimbob]

Can't it be based on erroneous data or some dispassionate perspective? I would think so.

Obviously it *could* be. In practice, it doesn't seem to be.

I have a book from the 1950s by Hans Eysenk which includes a chapter on the psychology of antisemitism, and he notes that antisemites in that era tended to hold mutually contradictory views about Jews, for example that they kept separate from society and didn't work, and also that they were steeling jobs by undercutting non Jews, and infiltrating all levels of society with a Jewish agenda.

When I have time, I might find the reference.

 

[Belz...]

I have a book from the 1950s by Hans Eysenk which includes a chapter on the psychology of antisemitism, and he notes that antisemites in that era tended to hold mutually contradictory views about Jews, for example that they kept separate from society and didn't work, and also that they were steeling jobs by undercutting non Jews, and infiltrating all levels of society with a Jewish agenda.

Sounds like they were latching on to any excuse to hate them. I wonder what was the root cause of it, however.

 

[Imhotep]

Great thinkers don't seem to be able to dissuade racists through argument. This is, of course, not intended to say that such arguments shouldn't be had necessarily, but that your prediction seems fantastic.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I don't think it's the current racists that will be convinced either. It's the next couple of generations that will.

 

[jimbob]

Sounds like they were latching on to any excuse to hate them. I wonder what was the root cause of it, however.

I'd guess that they'd been brought up to hate. Nothing more. It's hard to unlearn what you learned as a kid at an emotional level.

ETA: especially when you haven't been given any reason to try to unlearn it.

It also seems standard conspiracy theory material.

 

[phiwum]

I don't think it's the current racists that will be convinced either. It's the next couple of generations that will.

I wonder what sort of great thinkers you have in mind.

I hate to say it, because it betrays a cynicism about the power of reason that I wish I didn't have, but marketing is your best bet and marketing doesn't require that we first have a dialogue about our beliefs and prejudices.

Now, all that said, I'm not arguing in favor of hate speech laws or anything of the sort. I like that freedom of speech in the U.S. is quite broad. I just don't think "Let's all have a chat about our opinions and then the big thinkers will reason us out of the worst ones and into the best ones" is a promising strategy, not even in a couple of generations.

 

[Stacko]

With the lawless racist theocrat, Roy Moore, beating Trump and McConnell backed conventionalish, Luther Strange, in Alabama, it seems a hardcore portion of GOP base that wants more open bigotry has been activated. Trump may be more the result of these people coalescing in pursuit of that goal than the catalyst.

 

[Foolmewunz]

It's hard to take your concern seriously when all you bring is sarcasm. It gives the impression you don't even take it seriously yourself.

Anyway, your argument is both a non sequitur and contrafactual. And "those on the right" is a pretty weaselly phrasing. You were having a conversation with other members here. You don't need to appeal to an anonymous other group, "those on the right". You can actually address the claims and arguments made by the members involved in the conversation. Assuming any of them have actually said what you're claiming. So c'mon: Put aside the sarcasm and the elisions, and have at it.

What a strange post! Have you taken up tone policing, now? The thread hadn't seen any activity in a bit. I ran across this old article compliments of another poster in another thread.

It struck me that the enablers and apologists always demand firm evidence that any misanthropic deed we post be proven to be Trump related. Since this one has his very words saying that he's got Trump in office so he is going to merrily discriminate based on her "race".

As usual, you have no problems nitpicking the terms used, but you don't address the issue! Here's a bigot who felt so enabled by the Orange Cheeto that he decided to exercise his rights to be a bigot.

That seems pretty clear.

 

[Foolmewunz]

It's hard to take your concern seriously when all you bring is sarcasm. It gives the impression you don't even take it seriously yourself.

Anyway, your argument is both a non sequitur and contrafactual. And "those on the right" is a pretty weaselly phrasing. You were having a conversation with other members here. You don't need to appeal to an anonymous other group, "those on the right". You can actually address the claims and arguments made by the members involved in the conversation. Assuming any of them have actually said what you're claiming. So c'mon: Put aside the sarcasm and the elisions, and have at it.

What a strange post! Have you taken up tone policing, now? The thread hadn't seen any activity in a bit. I ran across this old article compliments of another poster in another thread.

It struck me that the enablers and apologists always demand firm evidence that any misanthropic deed we post be proven to be Trump related. Since this one has his very words saying that he's got Trump in office so he is going to merrily discriminate based on her "race".

As usual, you have no problems nitpicking the terms used, but you don't address the issue! Here's a bigot who felt so enabled by the Orange Cheeto that he decided to exercise his rights to be a bigot.

That seems pretty clear.

ETA: Hilited bit.... turns out that's wrong. What it hadn't seen was much activity related to the topic of the thread.

 

[ponderingturtle]

With the lawless racist theocrat, Roy Moore, beating Trump and McConnell backed conventionalish, Luther Strange, in Alabama, it seems a hardcore portion of GOP base that wants more open bigotry has been activated. Trump may be more the result of these people coalescing in pursuit of that goal than the catalyst.

The bigots certainly cite trump a lot when harassing people. But for some reason we are supposed to ignore all that. Hell during the campaign his campaign slogans were used in racial harassment, that should give people a clue about what he was all about.

 

[Upchurch]

Scientific American: Do Trump Tweets Spur Hate Crimes?

Muller and Schwarz analyzed the relationship between Trump’s tweets and anti-Muslim hate crimes by drawing upon a number of data sources, including the FBI’s hate crime data between the years 1990 and 2016 as well as Twitter usage across the country. First, they documented that the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes recorded by the FBI increased during Trump’s presidency. In fact, anti-Muslim crimes have been more prevalent under Trump compared to any other previous president, including George W. Bush following 9/11. Second, the researchers found strong statistical correlations between the number of Islam-related tweets made by Trump in a single week and the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes that took place in the days and weeks that followed. Trump’s anti-Islam tweets were only correlated with anti-Muslim crimes and not other types of hate crimes. Therefore, it seems likely that it was the specific content of Trump’s tweets, and not growing anti-minority sentiment in general, that were linked to the uptick in anti-Muslim hate crimes.

However:

While highly suggestive, a major limitation of this research is that it is correlational not causal. In order to prove that Trump’s tweets truly caused an increase in hate crimes, the researchers would need to run a carefully controlled experiment showing that exposure to such messages leads people to act out in hateful ways. This research also does not prove that Trump’s tweets cause people to hold prejudicial views towards Muslims. In fact, the researchers themselves do not seem to believe this. Instead, they point out that their findings are consistent with the idea that Trump’s presidency has made it more socially acceptable for many people to express prejudicial or hateful views that they already possessed prior to his election.

FWIW

 

[pgwenthold]

You could just ask the people that do it. How many have actually admitted that Trump gives them permission? More than a few

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

You could just ask the people that do it. How many have actually admitted that Trump gives them permission? More than a few

Just the other day:

That's when the woman yelled "Go back to Mexico!" at his mother, Guzman told CNN.

The video starts with the woman holding her middle finger up to Guzman’s face as he says, "I don’t know why you hate us. Why do you hate us?" To which she responds, "Because you’re Mexicans."


"We’re honest people right here," he says. The woman laughs.

"Yeah, rapists," she says, and as Guzman tries to interject, she continues: "And animals. And drug dealers. Drug dealers, rapists and animals. Even the president of the United States says so."

Linky.

 

[dudalb]

Support Trump, Support Bigotry.
It's that simple.

 

[dudalb]

ANd with Trump emboldended by the Supreme Court decision we ain't seen nothing yet.