MAGA brats mock Native American with "build the wall" chants

xjx388 said:
I see.

If some kids wear a red hat with the words “Make America Great Again” they get no quarter; they are quite obviously racist white supremacist brats. Even though they were basically just standing there -certainly not using any offensive terms.

But if you use the words you used it’s OK because you are liberal and you are just paraphrasing some hypothetical racists. Even though those words are offensive and racist in and of themselves,

As I said, it’s interesting.
Click to expand...

Referring to other people's racism isn't racism.
 
Craig4 said:
I'm calling voting for Trump racist regardless of the motivation.
Click to expand...
Which makes your position ridiculous.
Even if I'm being unfair (which I'm not) why do you care? They're just Trump supporters.
Click to expand...
Dehumanizing your opponents is exactly what racists do. Congrats!
 
Craig4 said:
I'm calling voting for Trump racist regardless of the motivation. Even if I'm being unfair (which I'm not) why do you care? They're just Trump supporters.
Click to expand...

When you say that voting for Trump is racist you are explicitly talking about the motivation for the vote, and ascribing it to racism. To then say that you call it racism regardless of the motivation is simply to admit that you aren't interested in the truth of your statement.

You then go on to say that we shouldn't care because they are just Trump supporters. And why shouldn't we care about whether or not the disparaging things we say about Trump supporters are true? Well, because they're racist...

Go to 10.
 
xjx388 said:
What other people? No one in this thread used those terms.
Click to expand...

There are people in the world who haven't posted in this thread.

ETA I've highlighted the people whose racism was being referred to in the quote:

Foolmewunz said:
Your bog variety bigot is a simple minded sort and first falls back on the visual cues. Skin color/hue is one of them. If they want to hate on towel heads or beaners or spicks who don't have physical cues, they merely have to do a little book-learning to find out that they're different and thus worthy of hatred.

"See, we hate everyone who's not us, not just the ones we can spot from visual cues" is not a stellar argument. To yer average bigot, the skin color is just a quick-think bonus. Don't have to figure nothing out 'cuz they're darker.
Click to expand...


If you want to argue that such people are very uncommon, that's fine. But he was certainly referring to them, regardless of whether or not he's right about how common they are.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Of course you are. After all, why do motives even matter? It's all about which side you're on.
Click to expand...

Yes, at the moment, you're either on the country's side or you're not. Among other things, not being on the country's side means you're for someone who in addition to being a traitor is also a racist. That makes his supporters racists as well.
 
Roboramma said:
When you say that voting for Trump is racist you are explicitly talking about the motivation for the vote, and ascribing it to racism. To then say that you call it racism regardless of the motivation is simply to admit that you aren't interested in the truth of your statement.

You then go on to say that we shouldn't care because they are just Trump supporters. And why shouldn't we care about whether or not the disparaging things we say about Trump supporters are true? Well, because they're racist...

Go to 10.
Click to expand...

You can't support a racist for president because he's good for your 401K and not be racist yourself.
 
Craig4 said:
I'm calling voting for Trump racist regardless of the motivation.
Click to expand...

Then by the same token you can be called a racist as well.

Even if I'm being unfair (which I'm not)
Click to expand...

Calling someone by a word that is entirely related to their motivation while ignoring their motivation absolutely is unfair.

why do you care?
Click to expand...

Why do I care about accuracy and reality? Oh, I don't know...

They're just Trump supporters.
Click to expand...

Why stop there? If you're willing to ditch reality and human decency when it applies to your political foes, why not go out and shoot them in the head?

I suppose since I hate Hitler and his ilk I could say that the man was an alien from Saturn. After all, factual accuracy is so passé.
 
Craig4 said:
Yes, at the moment, you're either on the country's side or you're not. Among other things, not being on the country's side means you're for someone who in addition to being a traitor is also a racist. That makes his supporters racists as well.
Click to expand...

If you vote for someone who is a vegetarian, that makes you a vegetarian as well! :rolleyes:

You can't support a racist for president because he's good for your 401K and not be racist yourself.
Click to expand...

Of course you can, since your taxes HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE.
 
Craig4 said:
Yes, at the moment, you're either on the country's side or you're not. Among other things, not being on the country's side means you're for someone who in addition to being a traitor is also a racist. That makes his supporters racists as well.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you don't speak for "the country". And what exactly do you imagine this "country's side" even is, if the people in that country are split on the issue roughly 50/50?
 
Ziggurat said:
I'm pretty sure you don't speak for "the country". And what exactly do you imagine this "country's side" even is, if the people in that country are split on the issue roughly 50/50?
Click to expand...

We aren't 50/50 split on this. Loyal Americans in polls outnumber disloyal Americans. Trump's approval rating is not at 50 percent and you know full well that loyal Americans outnumber Trump supporters in all reputable, scientific polls. I wish the disapproval numbers are higher but it is what it is.
 
Roboramma said:
When you say that voting for Trump is racist you are explicitly talking about the motivation for the vote, and ascribing it to racism. To then say that you call it racism regardless of the motivation is simply to admit that you aren't interested in the truth of your statement.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Something can be racist if its effect is to promote racism. Motivation doesn't need to enter into it.

For example, when my sister announced her engagement to someone who wasn't white, my grandmother opposed the marriage and cried for days over it. She wasn't motivated by hatred of non-white people, her concern was for how people would treat my sister and her children. The effect is still racist even though her motivation wasn't.

In this case if someone acknowledges Trump's racism but votes for him because he's going to stack a Supreme Court to overturn Roe V Wade (or whatever reason) they're essentially their issue, whatever it may be, is more important to them than racism.
 
Belz... said:
Only if you define racism as something else entirely. Why would you do that rather than use a more correct term?
Click to expand...

Uhm, I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one to declare that which promotes racism is itself racist.

I know it adds a layer of complexity that some people won't be comfortable with, but it is a complex issue, isn't it?
 
Mycroft said:
Uhm, I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one to declare that which promotes racism is itself racist.
Click to expand...

No, and you're not the only one who's wrong about this. Words mean things, and the expansion of this particular one into near-meaninglessness is counter-productive.

I know it adds a layer of complexity that some people won't be comfortable with, but it is a complex issue, isn't it?
Click to expand...

It really isn't.

How indirect does the effect need to be for the cause to stop being racist? If I buy an appartment building and demolish it to build a train station, and as a result down the line fewer locals can find places to live, and they happen to be black, was my purchase racist? If not, what's the cut-off?

That's why the actual definition is useful and clear: if you generall think another 'race' is inferior or worthy of contemp or violence, then you're a racist. Racism is not the same as bias, and it's not the same as negative effects on specific groups.
 
Belz... said:
No, and you're not the only one who's wrong about this. Words mean things, and the expansion of this particular one into near-meaninglessness is counter-productive.



It really isn't.

How indirect does the effect need to be for the cause to stop being racist? If I buy an appartment building and demolish it to build a train station, and as a result down the line fewer locals can find places to live, and they happen to be black, was my purchase racist? If not, what's the cut-off?

That's why the actual definition is useful and clear: if you generall think another 'race' is inferior or worthy of contemp or violence, then you're a racist. Racism is not the same as bias, and it's not the same as negative effects on specific groups.
Click to expand...

Your argument boils down to, "It's not complex because if you use any criteria other than the one I want, it becomes too complex. Therefore we have to use the criteria I like."
 
Craig4 said:
At least I'm still a patriotic, loyal American, unlike some dirty Trump supporter.
Click to expand...


I'm sure you think you are as do the conservatives who voted for Trump. I personally see no connection between Hillary and patriotism. Besides, I was always told by liberals here that patriotism is bad. :confused:

I'm calling voting for Trump racist regardless of the motivation. Even if I'm being unfair (which I'm not) why do you care? They're just Trump supporters.
Click to expand...


And that makes about as much sense as my "fat ass" comment. Nobody should care what you or I think, this is a skeptics site.
 
Mycroft said:
Not necessarily. Something can be racist if its effect is to promote racism. Motivation doesn't need to enter into it.
Click to expand...

I think it makes much more sense to say that things that are racist are racist and things that promote racism... promote racism.


For example, when my sister announced her engagement to someone who wasn't white, my grandmother opposed the marriage and cried for days over it. She wasn't motivated by hatred of non-white people, her concern was for how people would treat my sister and her children. The effect is still racist even though her motivation wasn't.
Click to expand...

That's not racism. It may be that she should be more concerned with defeating the problem of racism than with the potential effects on the wellbeing of her child (that you say she was worried about), but even that's not straightforward to me.

[quote[In this case if someone acknowledges Trump's racism but votes for him because he's going to stack a Supreme Court to overturn Roe V Wade (or whatever reason) they're essentially their issue, whatever it may be, is more important to them than racism.[/QUOTE]

Yes. But that doesn't make them racist. I think racism is a very important concern. But if, for instance, we had two candidates, one who was as racist as Trump and another who wanted to start a nuclear war, I'd vote for the racist, because avoiding nuclear war is more important to me than preventing racism.

You might claim that those who care more about their issue than about racism are selfish, but racism is a different thing.

It's possible that they'd be less selfish if the people who stood to be harmed weren't people of colour, but were instead white, in which case I'd say that is racism, given that they'd be attributing more worth the people of one race than another based only on that quality (if someone values their friends or family members more than strangers, that's not racism).
 
Roboramma said:
Yes. But that doesn't make them racist. I think racism is a very important concern. But if, for instance, we had two candidates, one who was as racist as Trump and another who wanted to start a nuclear war, I'd vote for the racist, because avoiding nuclear war is more important to me than preventing racism.
Click to expand...

Not everyone agrees with you. There are people in the world who think racism is worse than nuclear annihilation. If you think I'm joking you can listen for yourself.

 
Originally Posted by mgidm86
Did you vote for Hillary? If so that makes you a lying bitch with a big ass.
Click to expand...

Voting for Trump doesn't make you an adulterous, pathological lying narcissist with a bad comb over and a fake tan. It just makes you gullible and none too bright.
 
Mycroft said:
Your argument boils down to, "It's not complex because if you use any criteria other than the one I want, it becomes too complex. Therefore we have to use the criteria I like."
Click to expand...

How about you address the argument as I've made it, rather than some fantasy version you've made up?

The word 'racism' is not about consequences, or unconscious bias, but about how one views other ethnic groups.

This has nothing to do with complexity. It's about your use of the word being wrong.
 
Belz... said:
How about you address the argument as I've made it, rather than some fantasy version you've made up?

The word 'racism' is not about consequences, or unconscious bias, but about how one views other ethnic groups.

This has nothing to do with complexity. It's about your use of the word being wrong.
Click to expand...

I agree. I'd also like to add (I think you'll agree), that the complexities of the issue are certainly relevant and meaningful, but folding them into the word "racism" actually makes the complexities less rather than more clear.
 
Checkmite said:
Hey, you do you.

If there's Trump supporters who personally aren't racist, at the very least they feel supporting unabashed racism is an acceptable price for getting whatever it is they do want out of him; so honestly "racist, not-racist" becomes more like splitting hairs at this juncture.

I can no longer accept as credible or even reasonable the hypothesis that some Trump supporters are genuinely unaware that he champions racist policies and openly courts the approval of white supremacists.
Click to expand...

Ready for a shock?

...

I can totally buy the idea that there are some people that simply don't, or can't, accept the obvious fact that Dolt 45 is plainly a white supremacist.

The reasoning is actually simple. "Well, I know that being a racist is the worst thing you can be. Trump thinks what I think. And if Trump's a white supremacist, then so am I, and that makes me a racist, the worst thing a person can be. But that's crazy! I'm not evil, so I'm not racist, so neither is Trump!"

Simple. Deeply fallacious at every step, but simple.

A large part of this, again, comes down to the fact that many white people simply can't recognize racism, because they aren't taught what it is. They and their families simply don't need to know, so they never really learned anything beyond burning crosses, fire hoses, and "Segregation forever!". White conservatives and reactionaries, in particular, tend to sneer at "Identity Politics" (even as they wallow in it) or "Ethnic Studies", so they're shocked when black people are perfectly fine with Obama having a different accent in front of a black audience than in front of Congress (I've been accused of inventing the term "code-switching" multiple times!). They try to shoehorn other people's theory into their misguided concepts, which is how they get gibberish like the "intersectional pyramid", which has nothing to do with the actual theory of intersectionality.
 
Roboramma said:
I agree. I'd also like to add (I think you'll agree), that the complexities of the issue are certainly relevant and meaningful, but folding them into the word "racism" actually makes the complexities less rather than more clear.
Click to expand...

I'm going to go right ahead and disagree. "subconscious bias" is leagues from "white nationalist", but the idea that the former is not a form of racism is false. Yes, the person with such a bias does, in the end, believe that one "race" is somehow superior to the other, and they will act on it, in ways that are generally more damaging than an idiot like Richard Spencer, precisely because the person does not recognize their own underlying beliefs.
 
mgidm86 said:
I'm sure you think you are as do the conservatives who voted for Trump. I personally see no connection between Hillary and patriotism. Besides, I was always told by liberals here that patriotism is bad. :confused:









And that makes about as much sense as my "fat ass" comment. Nobody should care what you or I think, this is a skeptics site.
Click to expand...
Could you provide evidence for your claim "Besides, I was always told by liberals here that patriotism is bad. "?
 
mgidm86 said:
Nobody should care what you or I think, this is a skeptics site.
Click to expand...


Skeptics should absolutely care what others think, at least when a significant portion of them get conned by the right wing propaganda machine or similar nonsense. That level of gullibility is dangerous for a nation and must be addressed in some fashion.
 
Darat said:
Could you provide evidence for your claim "Besides, I was always told by liberals here that patriotism is bad. "?
Click to expand...


I have time for two examples.

One...

The Great Zaganza said:
Patriotism in the US is 99% stupid:instead of actually doing something for your country, you attack whoever you think doesn't praise it enough.
And Bonespurs is the archetype of this phenomenon.
Click to expand...


Two...not so bad...

Fudbucker said:
Here's some color photos from Nazi Germany. Note the prominent display of flags everywhere.
https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/color-photos-from-nazi-germany/

As a liberal, I don't "sneer" at excessive patriotism, it just scares me. I fully expect one of these days for there to be a military parade, with il Duce- er, Trump- looking on, stuffed in a bemedaled military uniform.

I do, however, sneer at his idiot supporters, which is about 40% of the country these days.
Click to expand...


If you require more let me know, these are both from the same thread. I'm really not inclined to look any harder because this will fall on deaf ears anyways and it really isn't that important to me.

But there ya go - evidence..
 
Mumbles said:
Ready for a shock?



...



I can totally buy the idea that there are some people that simply don't, or can't, accept the obvious fact that Dolt 45 is plainly a white supremacist.



The reasoning is actually simple. "Well, I know that being a racist is the worst thing you can be. Trump thinks what I think. And if Trump's a white supremacist, then so am I, and that makes me a racist, the worst thing a person can be. But that's crazy! I'm not evil, so I'm not racist, so neither is Trump!"



Simple. Deeply fallacious at every step, but simple.
Click to expand...
Yes, what you just said is deeply fallacious.

I don’t think Trump is a white supremacist. My reasoning does not fall anywhere near along the lines you’ve laughably outlined above. Trump is a 73 year old product of the culture and the time period he was raised in. You can say he’s racist and I won’t argue with you. But to say he’s a white supremacist is to say that he’s espoused a certain world-view that there’s no evidence that he actually has.



A large part of this, again, comes down to the fact that many white people simply can't recognize racism, because they aren't taught what it is. They and their families simply don't need to know, so they never really learned anything beyond burning crosses, fire hoses, and "Segregation forever!".
Click to expand...
I’m sure this is true but not universally. I see no need to tar all white people with the same brush.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom