Trump isn't a fascist? Meet advisor Bannon's bestest buddies - Page 6

The Don · 28th November 2016, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

You're tempting fate, here.

Possibly, but we typically have 5 candidates, 3 of which belong to parties I could conceivably vote for and the nature of UK politics is such that no senior post is directly voted for. I won't be in the position of only having two candidates, both unacceptable

phiwum · 28th November 2016, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by The Don

Possibly, but we typically have 5 candidates, 3 of which belong to parties I could conceivably vote for and the nature of UK politics is such that no senior post is directly voted for. I won't be in the position of only having two candidates, both unacceptable

Congrats. But things change in unforeseeable ways.

Donald *********** Trump, for God's sake. Donald *********** Trump. I'm not saying that this horror could happen just anywhere, but this horror could happen just anywhere.

ETA: Seriously, different voting conventions might make this less likely. Nonetheless, in principle, extraordinarily bad choices are possible in any setting.

zorro99 · 28th November 2016, 01:31 PM

From The NY Times

"Where some perceive racism and nativism, others see a different -ism: opportunism. Whatever may be in his heart, they say, Mr. Bannon was happy to draw a white nationalist following to Breitbart, while denying that was his intent.

Ben Shapiro, a former Breitbart editor who has been sharply critical of Mr. Bannon, called him “a manipulator” who had “mainstreamed” far-right extremists for cynical political purposes.

Ms. Jones, Mr. Bannon’s former film collaborator, who describes herself as very liberal, said, “Steve’s not a racist.”

But, she added, “he’s using the alt-right — using them for power.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/27/us...ouse.html?_r=0

LSSBB · 28th November 2016, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by phiwum

Congrats. But things change in unforeseeable ways.

Donald *********** Trump, for God's sake. Donald *********** Trump. I'm not saying that this horror could happen just anywhere, but this horror could happen just anywhere.

ETA: Seriously, different voting conventions might make this less likely. Nonetheless, in principle, extraordinarily bad choices are possible in any setting.

Oddly predictive, possibly:
It Can't Happen Here

quadraginta · 28th November 2016, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by uke2se

I wouldn't. Haven't you been paying attention? Racism is a deal breaker, but so is a candidate being a murderer or "nuke lobber" (goes without saying). I don't have one deal breaker, but several.

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Nuke lobber? Hillary?

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I think he's still talking about Trump.

Originally Posted by zorro99

From The NY Times

"Where some perceive racism and nativism, others see a different -ism: opportunism. Whatever may be in his heart, they say, Mr. Bannon was happy to draw a white nationalist following to Breitbart, while denying that was his intent.

Ben Shapiro, a former Breitbart editor who has been sharply critical of Mr. Bannon, called him “a manipulator” who had “mainstreamed” far-right extremists for cynical political purposes.

Ms. Jones, Mr. Bannon’s former film collaborator, who describes herself as very liberal, said, “Steve’s not a racist.”

But, she added, “he’s using the alt-right — using them for power.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/27/us...ouse.html?_r=0

Not a racist.

He just promotes the goals of racists for his own personal benefit.

Well. That's alright, then.

phiwum · 28th November 2016, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Not a racist.

He just promotes the goals of racists for his own personal benefit.

Well. That's alright, then.

Just to be clear, I regard neither racism nor using racism for one's benefit as "alright".

Though, strictly speaking, I wouldn't call the latter "racism". In fact, it might be worse.

Lithrael · 28th November 2016, 04:53 PM

This cartoon seems relevant to the subject matter.

http://amultiverse.com/comic/2016/11...makes-racists/

angrysoba · 2nd December 2016, 06:52 AM

Originally Posted by uke2se

I think you are misunderstanding me.

I'm saying that in any election, racism should be a deal breaker. Same as someone being a murderer or wanting to start a nuclear war. These are simply not acceptable. No matter who the other candidate is, I wouldn't vote for the racist. If the other guy was a murderer or wanted to start a nuclear war, I'd vote for a third option, not vote at all, or ******* take up arms.

Originally Posted by phiwum

Okay, I think that statement is naive.

If the two major candidates are (1) a moderately racist person and (2) a guy wanting to lob a few nukes in order to settle the Middle East, and it's a close election, your principles would prevent you for voting for (1)? I readily admit that such a choice is very unlikely, but in that case, surely you ought to vote for (1).

We both agree that a racist President is a very bad thing for the nation, even if he's only moderately racist (not a separatist or worse, but has some racist opinions). It would be rare indeed that the racist would be better than the alternative.

But in a year in which Trump won the Presidential election, it's not at all unthinkable that there would be a choice between an otherwise decent but moderately racist candidate and someone much worse. If there were, for instance, no evidence that Trump was racist, and some evidence that Hillary likes occasional racist jokes and refuses to hire South Pacific lawyers, then I'd have voted for the racist, because Trump was that dreadful regardless of his race issues.

Originally Posted by LSSBB

There were more than two candidates, and also none of the above or a write in. It is entirely possible for the top two candidates to not meet your threshold - you are not obligated to pick one or the other. False duality is a lack of imagination, and a naïve belief IMHO. You will not decide the election either way as a single vote.

Originally Posted by uke2se

I honestly think that if we were presented with such a choice, democracy would have failed us, and it would be time for a reset. I stand by my point: racism is a deal breaker.

As LSSBB says above, there are more choices than person A or person B. One such is "Both are poison, I'm going for neither". I realize that's what a lot of people thought about this election. Those people were ill informed, as you guys did have one decent choice. You failed to pick it.

Originally Posted by Oystein

There is a problem with this tactic that is almost too obvious to be written out:

What if - as is undeniably the reality in US elections - the third party candidates have not the slightest chance to beat both the racist and the crazy nuke thrower? Then such a "moral" vote does nothing to prevent nuclear war, while the "racist" vote is one vote closer to preventing nuclear war.

Just imagine the nuke candidate was 47% in the latest polls a week before election, the moderately racist candidate was 46%, and all others shared the remaining 7%. And it had been known since the beginning of the campaigns that the candidates are such slime balls.

One further fact to spoil the "never a racist President" mantra:
Every President so far has been a moderate racist. Yes. I said it. JFK was and LBJ and even BHO.
Every candidate who ever applied for the Presidential ticket has been a moderate racist. And a moderate sexist, ageist, you call it. Unless they were outright racists, of course.
Just depends on what the threshold for "moderate" is

Originally Posted by uke2se

I know I shouldn't, but I would trust in human self-preservation in such a case.

We are talking about a ridiculous scenario, though. It's kind of like asking a vegan "would you rather starve than eat meat"? Most wouldn't. That doesn't change the fact that they stick to their principles.

This completely destroys the meaning of "racist" and "sexist". We might as well abolish those words if you're going to cast the net that wide.

Maybe this discussion has moved on, but I agree, in principle with what phiwum and Oystein are saying, that there could be reasons why voting for a moderately racist candidate would be better than the alternative.

phiwum and Oystein are advancing the idea of a race in which the alternative is a potential nuke lobber, and this is being pooh-poohed as unrealistic - although implausibility is not a logical counterargument - or else that such a choice could ultimately lead to having to take up arms. But wait a minute...

In fact, (don't know if this has come up yet), but there was such a race.

As Oystein points out, LBJ's words and behaviour would almost certainly be considered racist by today's standards, and yet, he was a president who, as far as I know, passed more Civil Rights legislation than any other.

And even if he didn't, some people probably would have voted for him on the basis of his dangerous opponents claim that extremism in the face of evil is no vice, which was taken to mean he may have been a nuke lobber.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

angrysoba · 2nd December 2016, 07:03 AM

Originally Posted by The Don

It means that unless there was some force majeure* I could not vote for that individual.

* - discussing the nature of that force majeure is once again going to take us into the realm of pointless hypotheticals. Here in the real world, and living in the UK, I cannot conceive of a set of circumstances where adhering to my "deal-breakers" would result in an outcome so dire that I would be compelled to vote for a candidate who "broke the deal" so to speak.

Let's assume that phiwum is in the United States, rather than in the UK. Which he is. Then let's assume that your ability to vote in the UK is irrelevant to phiwum's case, which it is.

Then, why not attempt to understand what phiwum is trying to say instead of declaring that you "cannot conceive of" the idea of voting for a racist.

uke2se · 2nd December 2016, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Maybe this discussion has moved on, but I agree, in principle with what phiwum and Oystein are saying, that there could be reasons why voting for a moderately racist candidate would be better than the alternative.

phiwum and Oystein are advancing the idea of a race in which the alternative is a potential nuke lobber, and this is being pooh-poohed as unrealistic - although implausibility is not a logical counterargument - or else that such a choice could ultimately lead to having to take up arms. But wait a minute...

In fact, (don't know if this has come up yet), but there was such a race.

As Oystein points out, LBJ's words and behaviour would almost certainly be considered racist by today's standards, and yet, he was a president who, as far as I know, passed more Civil Rights legislation than any other.

And even if he didn't, some people probably would have voted for him on the basis of his dangerous opponents claim that extremism in the face of evil is no vice, which was taken to mean he may have been a nuke lobber.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

I understand the argument, but I cannot agree to accept something I consider unaccetable simply because the "alternative" is something else I consider unacceptable. That's a route to normalizing unacceptable behavior.

angrysoba · 2nd December 2016, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by uke2se

You keep saying "mildly racist". What do you mean? Is it just a single race the person doesn't like?

Originally Posted by uke2se

I think it could be argued that the person in question is not racist, but insensitive, and could possibly be reasoned with to come out against racism. If that's not the case, it's not a case of "mild racism".

Originally Posted by uke2se

The belief that humans from certain genetic pools, with a certain amount of melanin are better/worse or more/less evolved, and/or that people belonging to different such groups would do better to be kept apart and not mingle, especially sexually.

It can also be ascribing certain traits to different groups, such as 'lazy' or 'good at math'.

Hmmm... you purport to misunderstand what "mildly racist" is, but you can distinguish between racist and insensitive.

Yet, if I were to say, "Hey, maybe Chinese people are good at math!" - that is racist?

And presumably you see no gradation of racism between saying Chinese people are good at math and, say, lynching black people?

You don't see any distinction between the racism of the former and the racism of the latter? Really?

uke2se · 2nd December 2016, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Hmmm... you purport to misunderstand what "mildly racist" is, but you can distinguish between racist and insensitive.

Yet, if I were to say, "Hey, maybe Chinese people are good at math!" - that is racist?

It's a thought stemming from racism.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

And presumably you see no gradation of racism between saying Chinese people are good at math and, say, lynching black people? You don't see any distinction between the racism of the former and the racism of the latter? Really?

The consequences are different. The thought pattern is the same.

angrysoba · 2nd December 2016, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by uke2se

I understand the argument, but I cannot agree to accept something I consider unaccetable simply because the "alternative" is something else I consider unacceptable. That's a route to normalizing unacceptable behavior.

Really? You cannot accept that out of two unacceptable things one of those could be far more unacceptable than the other?

A French friend of mine once voted for Jacques Chirac, even though he hated Chirac. The reason was because he feared Jean Marie Le Pen getting elected and there was NO OTHER CHOICE!

In the upcoming French election, it now looks like the conservative running will be Fillon, but it could have been Sarkozy, who some people consider to be somewhat (mildly?) racist. He could have been running in an election against Marine Le Pen, in which case do you suggest taking up arms? Spoiling the ballot? Or deciding that the best outcome would be a win for Sarkozy even if you hated him? If it were me I would vote for Sarkozy and I would ignore any babble about "normalization".

angrysoba · 2nd December 2016, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by uke2se

It's a thought stemming from racism.

The consequences are different. The thought pattern is the same.

Patronizing and inaccurate racism is no different from murderous racism?

uke2se · 2nd December 2016, 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Really? You cannot accept that out of two unacceptable things one of those could be far more unacceptable than the other?

A French friend of mine once voted for Jacques Chirac, even though he hated Chirac. The reason was because he feared Jean Marie Le Pen getting elected and there was NO OTHER CHOICE!

In the upcoming French election, it now looks like the conservative running will be Fillon, but it could have been Sarkozy, who some people consider to be somewhat (mildly?) racist. He could have been running in an election against Marine Le Pen, in which case do you suggest taking up arms? Spoiling the ballot? Or deciding that the best outcome would be a win for Sarkozy even if you hated him? If it were me I would vote for Sarkozy and I would ignore any babble about "normalization".

There's that "mildly racist" again. Does he propose racist policies? Does his racism affect his decisionmaking? If so, I wouldn't vote for him.

There's always a third option.

uke2se · 2nd December 2016, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Patronizing and inaccurate racism is no different from murderous racism?

The consequences are different. The thought pattern is the same.

I believe I'm repeating myself.

Belz... · 2nd December 2016, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by uke2se

There's always a third option.

Also known as the "Kirk" option.

Border Reiver · 2nd December 2016, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Also known as the "Kirk" option.

Is that "Bang the green chick" or "Destroy all life on the planet" (General Order 24)?

Belz... · 2nd December 2016, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by Border Reiver

Is that "Bang the green chick" or "Destroy all life on the planet" (General Order 24)?

Kirk never banged a green anything in the original show, but I think Pike did.

Border Reiver · 2nd December 2016, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Kirk never banged a green anything in the original show, but I think Pike did.

But he did order the Canadian Gunner to be ready to destroy all life on the planet. And like a good GPO, Lt. Doohan got his fire plan ready.

Belz... · 2nd December 2016, 10:24 AM

Just following orders, your honour.

angrysoba · 2nd December 2016, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by uke2se

There's that "mildly racist" again. Does he propose racist policies? Does his racism affect his decisionmaking? If so, I wouldn't vote for him.

There's always a third option.

Yes, I deliberately used he term mildly racism. You don't get points for noticing.

You leave open the possibility that the candidate could be racist in a way that doesn't affect their decision making or in which they have no racist policies. Would racism that doesn't affect their decision making be mild? Otherwise why ask the question?

I find it ironic that you have such a black-and-white view of this in which any kind of racism whatsoever is seen as exactly the same regardless of consequences.

Originally Posted by uke2se

The consequences are different. The thought pattern is the same.

I believe I'm repeating myself.

You're doubling down on what I consider to be ideological dogma, in my opinion. When you say the thought patterns are the same, is this really a scientific or objective fact? Or is it a type of zero tolerance bluster designed to make the person making the claim feel good about themselves? Or, more kindly perhaps, just a useful heuristic?

uke2se · 5th December 2016, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Yes, I deliberately used he term mildly racism. You don't get points for noticing.

You leave open the possibility that the candidate could be racist in a way that doesn't affect their decision making or in which they have no racist policies. Would racism that doesn't affect their decision making be mild? Otherwise why ask the question?

I find it ironic that you have such a black-and-white view of this in which any kind of racism whatsoever is seen as exactly the same regardless of consequences.

You're doubling down on what I consider to be ideological dogma, in my opinion. When you say the thought patterns are the same, is this really a scientific or objective fact? Or is it a type of zero tolerance bluster designed to make the person making the claim feel good about themselves? Or, more kindly perhaps, just a useful heuristic?

I already explained this earlier, but it's possible that I wasn't clear enough:

Some traits are toxic. They are completely unacceptable for a person in government. Hell, I'd go as far as describe them as unacceptable for any person in a leadership position, but that goes way beyond the topic of this thread. My point is, these traits being unacceptable means that we should never ever make excuses for them, including "well at least s/he's not...." The moment we do that, we accept the unacceptable.

You can call it ideological dogma if you want. I call it basic progressivism.

phiwum · 5th December 2016, 01:23 PM

Thanks for AngrySoba for pitching in here. I kinda get uke2se's point of view, but I don't think he's right. When it comes down to it, there's really, really dreadful racism, the separatist and even worse kinds, and then there's the kind that is cringe worthy, embarrassing, but no worse.

Not all racism is the same, and not all racism is literally the most dreadful thing one can imagine. There's worse traits, even among national leaders. That said, of course we all agree that racist opinions are damned problematic in any leader. It would be a rare thing when we reach the point that racism doesn't disqualify a candidate.

But it can happen. Of all of Trump's dreadful qualities, racism isn't even in the top ten in my book. (That's saying something.)

28th November 2016, 01:26 PM	#202
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,718	Originally Posted by The Don Possibly, but we typically have 5 candidates, 3 of which belong to parties I could conceivably vote for and the nature of UK politics is such that no senior post is directly voted for. I won't be in the position of only having two candidates, both unacceptable Congrats. But things change in unforeseeable ways. Donald ********* Trump, for God's sake. Donald ********* Trump. I'm not saying that this horror could happen just anywhere, but this horror could happen just anywhere. ETA: Seriously, different voting conventions might make this less likely. Nonetheless, in principle, extraordinarily bad choices are possible in any setting.
	Last edited by phiwum; 28th November 2016 at 01:27 PM.

28th November 2016, 01:31 PM	#203
zorro99 Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 968	From The NY Times "Where some perceive racism and nativism, others see a different -ism: opportunism. Whatever may be in his heart, they say, Mr. Bannon was happy to draw a white nationalist following to Breitbart, while denying that was his intent. Ben Shapiro, a former Breitbart editor who has been sharply critical of Mr. Bannon, called him “a manipulator” who had “mainstreamed” far-right extremists for cynical political purposes. Ms. Jones, Mr. Bannon’s former film collaborator, who describes herself as very liberal, said, “Steve’s not a racist.” But, she added, “he’s using the alt-right — using them for power.” http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/27/us...ouse.html?_r=0
zorro99 Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 968	__________________ There is nothing as deceptive as an obvious fact.

28th November 2016, 02:05 PM	#204
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery Posts: 20,058	Originally Posted by phiwum Congrats. But things change in unforeseeable ways. Donald ********* Trump, for God's sake. Donald ********* Trump. I'm not saying that this horror could happen just anywhere, but this horror could happen just anywhere. ETA: Seriously, different voting conventions might make this less likely. Nonetheless, in principle, extraordinarily bad choices are possible in any setting. Oddly predictive, possibly: It Can't Happen Here
	__________________ "You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

28th November 2016, 03:54 PM	#205
quadraginta Becoming Beth Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of) Posts: 26,166	Originally Posted by uke2se I wouldn't. Haven't you been paying attention? Racism is a deal breaker, but so is a candidate being a murderer or "nuke lobber" (goes without saying). I don't have one deal breaker, but several. Originally Posted by NoahFence Nuke lobber? Hillary? Originally Posted by thaiboxerken I think he's still talking about Trump. Originally Posted by zorro99 From The NY Times "Where some perceive racism and nativism, others see a different -ism: opportunism. Whatever may be in his heart, they say, Mr. Bannon was happy to draw a white nationalist following to Breitbart, while denying that was his intent. Ben Shapiro, a former Breitbart editor who has been sharply critical of Mr. Bannon, called him “a manipulator” who had “mainstreamed” far-right extremists for cynical political purposes. Ms. Jones, Mr. Bannon’s former film collaborator, who describes herself as very liberal, said, “Steve’s not a racist.” But, she added, “he’s using the alt-right — using them for power.” http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/27/us...ouse.html?_r=0 Not a racist. He just promotes the goals of racists for his own personal benefit. Well. That's alright, then.
	__________________ "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." "Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."

28th November 2016, 04:53 PM	#207
Lithrael Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,033	This cartoon seems relevant to the subject matter. http://amultiverse.com/comic/2016/11...makes-racists/
Lithrael Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,033

28th November 2016, 01:10 PM	#201
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 31,328	Originally Posted by Argumemnon You're tempting fate, here. Possibly, but we typically have 5 candidates, 3 of which belong to parties I could conceivably vote for and the nature of UK politics is such that no senior post is directly voted for. I won't be in the position of only having two candidates, both unacceptable

28th November 2016, 03:56 PM	#206
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,718	Originally Posted by quadraginta Not a racist. He just promotes the goals of racists for his own personal benefit. Well. That's alright, then. Just to be clear, I regard neither racism nor using racism for one's benefit as "alright". Though, strictly speaking, I wouldn't call the latter "racism". In fact, it might be worse.

2nd December 2016, 07:03 AM	#209
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,309	Originally Posted by The Don It means that unless there was some force majeure* I could not vote for that individual. * - discussing the nature of that force majeure is once again going to take us into the realm of pointless hypotheticals. Here in the real world, and living in the UK, I cannot conceive of a set of circumstances where adhering to my "deal-breakers" would result in an outcome so dire that I would be compelled to vote for a candidate who "broke the deal" so to speak. Let's assume that phiwum is in the United States, rather than in the UK. Which he is. Then let's assume that your ability to vote in the UK is irrelevant to phiwum's case, which it is. Then, why not attempt to understand what phiwum is trying to say instead of declaring that you "cannot conceive of" the idea of voting for a racist.
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

2nd December 2016, 07:08 AM	#211
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,309	Originally Posted by uke2se You keep saying "mildly racist". What do you mean? Is it just a single race the person doesn't like? Originally Posted by uke2se I think it could be argued that the person in question is not racist, but insensitive, and could possibly be reasoned with to come out against racism. If that's not the case, it's not a case of "mild racism". Originally Posted by uke2se The belief that humans from certain genetic pools, with a certain amount of melanin are better/worse or more/less evolved, and/or that people belonging to different such groups would do better to be kept apart and not mingle, especially sexually. It can also be ascribing certain traits to different groups, such as 'lazy' or 'good at math'. Hmmm... you purport to misunderstand what "mildly racist" is, but you can distinguish between racist and insensitive. Yet, if I were to say, "Hey, maybe Chinese people are good at math!" - that is racist? And presumably you see no gradation of racism between saying Chinese people are good at math and, say, lynching black people? You don't see any distinction between the racism of the former and the racism of the latter? Really?
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

2nd December 2016, 07:10 AM	#212
uke2se Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 14,180	Originally Posted by angrysoba Hmmm... you purport to misunderstand what "mildly racist" is, but you can distinguish between racist and insensitive. Yet, if I were to say, "Hey, maybe Chinese people are good at math!" - that is racist? It's a thought stemming from racism. Originally Posted by angrysoba And presumably you see no gradation of racism between saying Chinese people are good at math and, say, lynching black people? You don't see any distinction between the racism of the former and the racism of the latter? Really? The consequences are different. The thought pattern is the same.
	__________________ Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

2nd December 2016, 07:14 AM	#213
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,309	Originally Posted by uke2se I understand the argument, but I cannot agree to accept something I consider unaccetable simply because the "alternative" is something else I consider unacceptable. That's a route to normalizing unacceptable behavior. Really? You cannot accept that out of two unacceptable things one of those could be far more unacceptable than the other? A French friend of mine once voted for Jacques Chirac, even though he hated Chirac. The reason was because he feared Jean Marie Le Pen getting elected and there was NO OTHER CHOICE! In the upcoming French election, it now looks like the conservative running will be Fillon, but it could have been Sarkozy, who some people consider to be somewhat (mildly?) racist. He could have been running in an election against Marine Le Pen, in which case do you suggest taking up arms? Spoiling the ballot? Or deciding that the best outcome would be a win for Sarkozy even if you hated him? If it were me I would vote for Sarkozy and I would ignore any babble about "normalization".
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

2nd December 2016, 07:15 AM	#214
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,309	Originally Posted by uke2se It's a thought stemming from racism. The consequences are different. The thought pattern is the same. Patronizing and inaccurate racism is no different from murderous racism?
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

2nd December 2016, 07:20 AM	#215
uke2se Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 14,180	Originally Posted by angrysoba Really? You cannot accept that out of two unacceptable things one of those could be far more unacceptable than the other? A French friend of mine once voted for Jacques Chirac, even though he hated Chirac. The reason was because he feared Jean Marie Le Pen getting elected and there was NO OTHER CHOICE! In the upcoming French election, it now looks like the conservative running will be Fillon, but it could have been Sarkozy, who some people consider to be somewhat (mildly?) racist. He could have been running in an election against Marine Le Pen, in which case do you suggest taking up arms? Spoiling the ballot? Or deciding that the best outcome would be a win for Sarkozy even if you hated him? If it were me I would vote for Sarkozy and I would ignore any babble about "normalization". There's that "mildly racist" again. Does he propose racist policies? Does his racism affect his decisionmaking? If so, I wouldn't vote for him. There's always a third option.
	__________________ Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

2nd December 2016, 07:21 AM	#216
uke2se Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 14,180	Originally Posted by angrysoba Patronizing and inaccurate racism is no different from murderous racism? The consequences are different. The thought pattern is the same. I believe I'm repeating myself.
	__________________ Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

2nd December 2016, 07:27 AM	#217
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,292	Originally Posted by uke2se There's always a third option. Also known as the "Kirk" option.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

2nd December 2016, 10:02 AM	#218
Border Reiver Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,687	Originally Posted by Argumemnon Also known as the "Kirk" option. Is that "Bang the green chick" or "Destroy all life on the planet" (General Order 24)?
	__________________ Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?

2nd December 2016, 10:04 AM	#219
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,292	Originally Posted by Border Reiver Is that "Bang the green chick" or "Destroy all life on the planet" (General Order 24)? Kirk never banged a green anything in the original show, but I think Pike did.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

2nd December 2016, 10:16 AM	#220
Border Reiver Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,687	Originally Posted by Argumemnon Kirk never banged a green anything in the original show, but I think Pike did. But he did order the Canadian Gunner to be ready to destroy all life on the planet. And like a good GPO, Lt. Doohan got his fire plan ready.
	__________________ Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?

2nd December 2016, 10:24 AM	#221
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,292	Just following orders, your honour.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

2nd December 2016, 11:59 AM	#222
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,309	Originally Posted by uke2se There's that "mildly racist" again. Does he propose racist policies? Does his racism affect his decisionmaking? If so, I wouldn't vote for him. There's always a third option. Yes, I deliberately used he term mildly racism. You don't get points for noticing. You leave open the possibility that the candidate could be racist in a way that doesn't affect their decision making or in which they have no racist policies. Would racism that doesn't affect their decision making be mild? Otherwise why ask the question? I find it ironic that you have such a black-and-white view of this in which any kind of racism whatsoever is seen as exactly the same regardless of consequences. Originally Posted by uke2se The consequences are different. The thought pattern is the same. I believe I'm repeating myself. You're doubling down on what I consider to be ideological dogma, in my opinion. When you say the thought patterns are the same, is this really a scientific or objective fact? Or is it a type of zero tolerance bluster designed to make the person making the claim feel good about themselves? Or, more kindly perhaps, just a useful heuristic?
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

5th December 2016, 06:05 AM	#223
uke2se Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 14,180	Originally Posted by angrysoba Yes, I deliberately used he term mildly racism. You don't get points for noticing. You leave open the possibility that the candidate could be racist in a way that doesn't affect their decision making or in which they have no racist policies. Would racism that doesn't affect their decision making be mild? Otherwise why ask the question? I find it ironic that you have such a black-and-white view of this in which any kind of racism whatsoever is seen as exactly the same regardless of consequences. You're doubling down on what I consider to be ideological dogma, in my opinion. When you say the thought patterns are the same, is this really a scientific or objective fact? Or is it a type of zero tolerance bluster designed to make the person making the claim feel good about themselves? Or, more kindly perhaps, just a useful heuristic? I already explained this earlier, but it's possible that I wasn't clear enough: Some traits are toxic. They are completely unacceptable for a person in government. Hell, I'd go as far as describe them as unacceptable for any person in a leadership position, but that goes way beyond the topic of this thread. My point is, these traits being unacceptable means that we should never ever make excuses for them, including "well at least s/he's not...." The moment we do that, we accept the unacceptable. You can call it ideological dogma if you want. I call it basic progressivism.
	__________________ Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

5th December 2016, 01:23 PM	#224
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,718	Thanks for AngrySoba for pitching in here. I kinda get uke2se's point of view, but I don't think he's right. When it comes down to it, there's really, really dreadful racism, the separatist and even worse kinds, and then there's the kind that is cringe worthy, embarrassing, but no worse. Not all racism is the same, and not all racism is literally the most dreadful thing one can imagine. There's worse traits, even among national leaders. That said, of course we all agree that racist opinions are damned problematic in any leader. It would be a rare thing when we reach the point that racism doesn't disqualify a candidate. But it can happen. Of all of Trump's dreadful qualities, racism isn't even in the top ten in my book. (That's saying something.)