"One cannot be racist against mexican..."

[superfreddy]

You can be racist against a Mexican based on his race/color of his skin.

Mexican is not a race, but a National Origin.

You are correct. Strictly speaking, Mexican is a national origin.

However, when the word "Mexican" becomes a code word for anyone with a darker complexion coming from any country South of the border or anybody with a Spanish sounding name, then it becomes flagrant racism.

 

[Mumbles]

You are correct. Strictly speaking, Mexican is a national origin.

However, when the word "Mexican" becomes a code word for anyone with a darker complexion coming from any country South of the border or anybody with a Spanish sounding name, then it becomes flagrant racism.

As I recall, the last so-called "illegal crisis" was not from Mexicans at all, but rather Central Americans, mostly teens and young adults, fleeing violence related to the major drug gangs in those countries. And it pretty much stopped when Mexico - you know, the country that Toupee Fiasco spent his campaign bad mouthing - cooperated with us to stop them and send them back (which - wow, Obama, what a jerk move!).

And they certainly weren't "bringing" drug or crime, and they were not "rapists", regardless of what Minute Maid Mao babbled about.

Now, of course, if you take "Mexico" literally, then the idiot's claims are nonsense. And of course, we could go into all the different countries, and the distinction between Hispanic and Latino, and the fact that both can be of various races - Trump isn't thinking about that. He's thinking, as you said, of fear-mongering against non-white people.

 

[TraneWreck]

While you make a compelling case, I have decided to go ahead and continue being precise and correct.

Except that you aren't.

If you said, "this guy hit me; I was assaulted."

Only an ******* would respond, "Technically you were battered. You may have also be assaulted, but the hitting isn't assault according the Model Penal Code. Assault is placing one in apprehension of violence....blah, blah"

It's a "Well, Actually..." You're applying a strict legal standard in employment discrimination cases to colloquial use of language. It's an equivocation and pretty silly.

Well, Actually, now that I think about it, your inappropriate use of employment discrimination law doesn't apply to accepted standards concerning the meaning of the term "racism":

The United Nations use the definition of racial discrimination laid out in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted in 1966:

... any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. (Part 1 of Article 1 of the U.N. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#International_law_and_racial_discrimination

 

[logger]

No, I didn't miss that. It began when a Democratic President signed the Civil Rights Act. Truly proof of the race-blind approach of the Republicans.

Where oh where could a poor, lost Dixiecrat find a home? Strom, the Republicans would love to have you...

Interesting you bring up that democrat, do you have a single clue what LBJ thought of blacks?

Not all conservative Dems came from the south. Its telling that you're not even going to argue that a few are left from the west and upper mid west?

 

[logger]

Except that you aren't.

If you said, "this guy hit me; I was assaulted."

Only an ******* would respond, "Technically you were battered. You may have also be assaulted, but the hitting isn't assault according the Model Penal Code. Assault is placing one in apprehension of violence....blah, blah"

It's a "Well, Actually..." You're applying a strict legal standard in employment discrimination cases to colloquial use of language. It's an equivocation and pretty silly.

Well, Actually, now that I think about it, your inappropriate use of employment discrimination law doesn't apply to accepted standards concerning the meaning of the term "racism":


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#International_law_and_racial_discrimination

That is one hell of an argument for open borders, lol. Another reason to leave the United Nations?

 

[The Big Dog]

Except that you aren't.

If you said, "this guy hit me; I was assaulted."

Only an ******* would respond, "Technically you were battered. You may have also be assaulted, but the hitting isn't assault according the Model Penal Code. Assault is placing one in apprehension of violence....blah, blah"

It's a "Well, Actually..." You're applying a strict legal standard in employment discrimination cases to colloquial use of language. It's an equivocation and pretty silly.

Well, Actually, now that I think about it, your inappropriate use of employment discrimination law doesn't apply to accepted standards concerning the meaning of the term "racism":


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#International_law_and_racial_discrimination

I have never ever witnessed such a vigorous advocacy in favor of being wrong, sloppy and imprecise. I am really, really impressed!

Nevertheless, I am just going to go ahead and continue being correct, precise and not saying things like "Mexican is a race."

By the way? Might want to take a gander at your "accepted standards"

"any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin."

"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion."

Notice anything significant??

Hmmmm

 

[TraneWreck]

I have never ever witnessed such a vigorous advocacy in favor of being wrong, sloppy and imprecise. I am really, really impressed!

So, you're saying the UN definition is wrong and imprecise?

Nevertheless, I am just going to go ahead and continue being correct, precise and not saying things like "Mexican is a race."

But discrimination against people from Mexico falls under the accepted international use of "racism."

By the way? Might want to take a gander at your "accepted standards"

"any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin."

"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion."

Notice anything significant??

Hmmmm

Again, this is a discussion of usage. Is it correct to call someone "racist" for expressing negative bias towards people from Mexico. The answer, according to widely accepted international standards, is yes.

Just because you would prefer a different definition based on legal distinctions in discrimination cases does not make that usage incorrect anymore than the technical definition of "assault" in criminal codes renders the colloquial use of assault unintelligible.

Like a Big Dog, you have a mouthful of poo and refuse to let it go.

 

[TraneWreck]

That is one hell of an argument for open borders, lol. Another reason to leave the United Nations?

That is a, unsurprisingly, massive and incoherent leap of logic. Restricting immigration from certain areas need not be racist. It just turns out that the people in this country who want to restrict immigration want to do so because they're racists.

It's a truth of fact about Republicans, not one of logic based on travel between nations.

 

[TraneWreck]

Interesting you bring up that democrat, do you have a single clue what LBJ thought of blacks?

Doesn't matter. He signed the Civil Rights Act, that's what lead to the exodus of conservatives from the Democratic Party. This is historical fact, the sad effort and ad hominem reasoning from you is just silly deflection.

Not all conservative Dems came from the south. Its telling that you're not even going to argue that a few are left from the west and upper mid west?

What point do you think you're making, here? The polarization of the parties, the unification of political ideology and party affiliation, happened in this country due to two major events:

The Republican Convention of 1912 when the electors gave the nomination to Taft despite Roosevelt being favored by the vote. This caused an exodus of progressives from the Republican Party.

And the signing of the Civil Rights Act. Over the next several decades this caused a steady realignment of conservatism with Republicans and liberalism with Democrats. That continues to this day.

This is true of the entire nation, but it was only in the South where large numbers of Democrats were exceptionally conservative, and the was because Lincoln was a Republican. The Republican Party was identified with abolition, so Southern ******** were Democrats. Thanks to LBJ and the Civil Rights Movement, now those Southern ******** are Republicans.

 

[The Big Dog]

goofball,

Ah, I see.

The colloquial usage to which you are referring is wrong and uniformed.

use if you want, of course, your "arguments" cannot get any worse at this point.

 

[Mumbles]

That you support a racist group like BLM confirms so much.

And similarly, the fact that you think that a movement opposed to racist police violence is itself racist tells us much about you.

Except your party has had actual known racists as Senator. With a host of others all through government.

Similarly, your party has also had racist senators (Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms). Naturally, each party has had various bigots, frauds, and the like. The issue is that the GOP's leader, today, is a clear-cut racist.

 

[TraneWreck]

The colloquial usage to which you are referring is wrong and uniformed.

No, it isn't. It's included in an accepted national charter. None of your sources contradict that use, they simply specify the language for legal purposes.

This is a common, common phenomenon.

use if you want, of course, your "arguments" cannot get any worse at this point.

So quickly we've reached the point in the exchange where you stop making points all together and try to "win" with contentless bravado.

You are just wrong. It is perfectly accepted usage to include bias against national origin in a definition of "racism." There are other definitions of the word that exclude that use, but that is irrelevant. It is appropriately applied.

 

[logger]

It just turns out that the people in this country who want to restrict immigration want to do so because they're racists.

.

And you call mine an incoherent leap of logic?

 

[The Big Dog]

So quickly we've reached the point in the exchange where you stop making points all together and try to "win" with contentless bravado.

says the guy who edited his earlier post to remove the infantile name calling.

Cool story.

 

[TraneWreck]

And you call mine an incoherent leap of logic?

Just the facts, man. Not a logical leap at all.

Folks chanting, "Build the wall, build the wall," were largely racist. Level of racial resentment is the single largest indicator of Trump support.

 

[logger]

Doesn't matter. He signed the Civil Rights Act, that's what lead to the exodus of conservatives from the Democratic Party. This is historical fact, the sad effort and ad hominem reasoning from you is just silly deflection.

No it proves that your example of a democrat who was in fact racist stayed a democrat.

What point do you think you're making, here? The polarization of the parties, the unification of political ideology and party affiliation, happened in this country due to two major events:

The Republican Convention of 1912 when the electors gave the nomination to Taft despite Roosevelt being favored by the vote. This caused an exodus of progressives from the Republican Party.

And the signing of the Civil Rights Act. Over the next several decades this caused a steady realignment of conservatism with Republicans and liberalism with Democrats. That continues to this day.

This is true of the entire nation, but it was only in the South where large numbers of Democrats were exceptionally conservative, and the was because Lincoln was a Republican. The Republican Party was identified with abolition, so Southern ******** were Democrats. Thanks to LBJ and the Civil Rights Movement, now those Southern ******** are Republicans.

It's quite simple, many moderate Dems come from the west, not the south.

 

[TraneWreck]

says the guy who edited his earlier post to remove the infantile name calling.

Cool story.

Yeah, I deleted it. It was ill advised. My apologies.

Do you have any substantive point to make?

 

[TraneWreck]

No it proves that your example of a democrat who was in fact racist stayed a democrat.

I mean, that's why the phrase "over the next few decades" was used. I don't know why you think it had to happen instantly. It's just a point of fact that the parties changed after the Civil Rights Act.

It's quite simple, many moderate Dems come from the west, not the south.

Ok, so? What does that have to do with anything?

We were talking about "conservative dems." Is this just some silly game where we play patty-cake over how you're defining those terms?

Again, the major realignment of the parties occurred because the mass of Conservative Democrats in the South left the Party eventually joining up with the Republicans after the signing of the Civil Rights Act.

That there are some outliers today in no way negates the historical trend.

 

[logger]

Just the facts, man. Not a logical leap at all.

Folks chanting, "Build the wall, build the wall," were largely racist. Level of racial resentment is the single largest indicator of Trump support.

Where in Gods name are the facts on that?

This post of yours is just more typical emotional division, a hallmark your side is quite known for.

 

[logger]

And similarly, the fact that you think that a movement opposed to racist police violence is itself racist tells us much about you.

That might true if your movement wasn't so clearly racist.

Similarly, your party has also had racist senators (Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms). Naturally, each party has had various bigots, frauds, and the like. The issue is that the GOP's leader, today, is a clear-cut racist.

Your "clearcut" is simply a joke. Its also a hallmark of race hustlers to claim something so "clearcut" when your supposed truth is so dubious.