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

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

How is it a bald assertion to note that voting for candidate X and his known policies is a show of support for those policies?

Here is the bald assertion: "racism, misogyny, homophobia and anti-science that the Trump admin have brought and will still bring to the forefront"

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by uke2se

That was an excellent and simple analogy that every Trump voter should work hard to understand.

Trump voters: YOU are responsible for the racism, misogyny, homophobia and anti-science that the Trump admin have brought and will still bring to the forefront. You can claim that you aren't racist as much as you want. You still voted for racism.

Yep. And in truth, I've simply come down harder on people who claim they aren't bigots, but who voted for Trump. After all, if you *are* a white nationalist, then you should have voted for him. It's pretty much all he stood for, after all.

But for that same reason, if you aren't a bigot of some kind, and especially if you claim to be bothered by bigotry, then you should have voted against him.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot

Here is the bald assertion: "racism, misogyny, homophobia and anti-science that the Trump admin have brought and will still bring to the forefront"

How is it a bald assertion? Did you miss everything Trump said during the campaign? Did you miss the appointments to his cabinet?

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

How is it a bald assertion? Did you miss everything Trump said during the campaign? Did you miss the appointments to his cabinet?

I've missed neither. Have you got anything showing that Bannon is a racist? (No, you don't) How about anything on Trump being a homophobe? (No, you don't)

...and so on.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot

I've missed neither. Have you got anything showing that Bannon is a racist? (No, you don't) How about anything on Trump being a homophobe? (No, you don't)

...and so on.

That's a pretty nonchalant goalpost-moving you just did, there. You said that the voters who voted for Trump voted for racism and that this was merely an assertion. I just told you that Trump and his minions have used racism throughout the campaign and that his appointees to the cabinet are well-known for their views, and now you're pretending as if you said something completely different.

Bigotry was Trump's main selling point and now he's doing exactly what he promised. If you voted for Trump, you voted for that, and no amount of excuse will change that.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

How is it a bald assertion to note that voting for candidate X and his known policies is a show of support for those policies?

It's not a show of support for those policies except in the limited sense that one finds these policies preferable to the alternative candidate.

Put yourself in the mindset of many Trump voters. I don't ask you to agree with the following beliefs, but imagine that you think that Hillary is a devious crook who will do whatever she can to enrich herself, even at the expense of the nation as a whole. Also, you believe that Trump is inexperienced, regularly lies and attracts racist supporters. Suppose further that you think a devious president like Hillary is a greater risk than an inexperienced president like Trump.

Then your vote does not mean you support racism. It means that, when choosing between these two candidates, Trump is better for the nation than Clinton.

Now, of course, I find these views about the threat Hillary posed compared to Trump ludicrous, that these voters have ignorantly accepted the view of Hillary as a supervillain. Their choice is based on ignorance, undoubtedly, but it does not constitute any real support for racism.

Unless you can argue that any candidate who appeals to racists is worse than literally any candidate who does not, the claim that a vote for Trump indicates support for racism is grossly misleading at best.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by phiwum

Put yourself in the mindset of many Trump voters. I don't ask you to agree with the following beliefs, but imagine that you think that Hillary is a devious crook who will do whatever she can to enrich herself, even at the expense of the nation as a whole. Also, you believe that Trump is inexperienced, regularly lies and attracts racist supporters. Suppose further that you think a devious president like Hillary is a greater risk than an inexperienced president like Trump.

Then your vote does not mean you support racism. It means that, when choosing between these two candidates, Trump is better for the nation than Clinton.

Which means you (general you) ACCEPT racism as a lesser evil. You KNOW it's a consequence of your vote, and you do it anyway. It might be passive support but it's support nonetheless. That's what voting is.

Quote:

Unless you can argue that any candidate who appeals to racists is worse than literally any candidate who does not

He doesn't just appeal to racists, however. His entire campaign was based in large part on screwing minorities over.

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Wow, this place is worse than I thought.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

That's a pretty nonchalant goalpost-moving you just did, there. You said that the voters who voted for Trump voted for racism and that this was merely an assertion.

No, I didn't. Which is why you didn't use the quote function.

I pointed out an assertion that was made, using quotes, that neither you nor the original poster will defend.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot

No, I didn't. Which is why you didn't use the quote function.

As you wish:

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot

Here is the bald assertion: "racism, misogyny, homophobia and anti-science that the Trump admin have brought and will still bring to the forefront"

From here:

Originally Posted by uke2se

Trump voters: YOU are responsible for the racism, misogyny, homophobia and anti-science that the Trump admin have brought and will still bring to the forefront. You can claim that you aren't racist as much as you want. You still voted for racism.

I pointed out where you're wrong, and where the campaign and cabinet situation both show uke2se's post correct. Stop dancing around the issue.

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

I pointed out....where the campaign and cabinet situation both show uke2se's post correct.

Cite, please? I'm particularly interested in the homophobia.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot

Cite, please? I'm particularly interested in the homophobia.

Look up Mike Pence.

Again, it's like you've missed the entire campaign and aftermath and just woke up from a two year coma.

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Look up Mike Pence.

Look up what an assertion is.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot

Look up what an assertion is.

I see you intend to go for wilfull ignorance. That won't cut it. Mike Pence is will known for his stance against gay marriage and has even supported nonsensical "pray away the gay" initiatives. If that's not homophobia I don't know what is. He's the VP, so he's part of the ticket people voted for when they voted for Trump.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Look up Mike Pence.

Again, it's like you've missed the entire campaign and aftermath and just woke up from a two year coma.

I did.

Quote:

But gay Democrats unfairly distort Pence’s record with distractions – and sometimes outright lies. Facing the most gay-friendly Republican nominee in history, the LGBT intelligentsia have engineered a phobic Frankenstein Veep to keep their minions from considering non-leftist alternatives.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Brainster

I did.

LGBT intelligentia! Is that the left-wing department of the Illuminati?

Pence opposed LGBT rights for years. Is that an invention, too?

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

LGBT intelligentia! Is that the left-wing department of the Illuminati?

Pence opposed LGBT rights for years. Is that an invention, too?

That'd be news to me, although irrelevant news. Did you know that Hillary Clinton opposed gay marriage for years? Pretty cool, huh?

But we've veered from the topic. You were trying to validate the assertion I posted earlier.

Ready, set, go!

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot

That'd be news to me, although irrelevant news.

Of course! It's entirely irrelevant to the claim that Trump voters voted for homophobia that his VP is a giant homophobe!

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Of course! It's entirely irrelevant to the claim that Trump voters voted for homophobia that his VP is a giant homophobe!

As a reminder, here is the assertion you're struggling to defend:

Originally Posted by uke2se

the racism, misogyny, homophobia and anti-science that the Trump admin have brought and will still bring to the forefront.

Best of luck.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Which means you (general you) ACCEPT racism as a lesser evil. You KNOW it's a consequence of your vote, and you do it anyway. It might be passive support but it's support nonetheless. That's what voting is.

A little subtler than this.

Racism comes in degrees, of course, and so it's misleading to think of racism, full stop, as a lesser evil. If we had evidence that Trump wanted to enforce legal segregation, for instance, it would be harder to think that he's the better candidate.

Also, the racism is part of a package. I tend to think that Trump will be ineffective, by and large (scary, nonetheless), and if instead similarly racist traits occurred in a political genius, then again we should be less likely to think that the racist candidate is the lesser evil.

The highlighted statement suggests an equivocation of "supports" that I think is important here. There is no doubt that, "A vote for a candidate supports that candidate." That is, it provides political support. It is quite different to say that, "A voter who votes for Trump supports racism." The latter suggests that the voter desires to further the cause of racism, and that certainly need not be the case.

Quote:

He doesn't just appeal to racists, however. His entire campaign was based in large part on screwing minorities over.

I don't want to get into an argument over whether Trump is a racist or what racism is. We agree that he appealed to racists and that his rhetoric used stereotypes about minorities to generate votes. I think that should be enough for our conversation.

I called Trump racist above, but I mean it loosely. Whether his actions entail that Trump is explicitly racist depends on the definition, but I think we can avoid that conversation for now, don't you?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot

As a reminder, here is the assertion you're struggling to defend:

Best of luck.

Yeah, that's the one I was talking about, but I'm sure you've made a few internet points for completely ignoring what I posted.

Quote:

the racism

"Some of them, I assume, are good people"

Quote:

misogyny

Grab 'em by the pussy.

Quote:

homophobia

Addressed with Pence.

Quote:

and anti-science

"Climate change is a hoax."

Quote:

that the Trump admin

Which is what we're talking about.

Quote:

have brought

During the campaign.

Quote:

and will still bring to the forefront.

And with the cabinet.

What part, specifically, do you think is a bald assertion? Because all of this is well-established, even for those just out of a coma.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by phiwum

There is no doubt that, "A vote for a candidate supports that candidate." That is, it provides political support. It is quite different to say that, "A voter who votes for Trump supports racism." The latter suggests that the voter desires to further the cause of racism, and that certainly need not be the case.

No, it doesn't. It suggests that by their actions they lend support to it, even if they personally do not espouse it.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

No, it doesn't. It suggests that by their actions they lend support to it, even if they personally do not espouse it.

At best, the statement, "X supports racism," could be interpreted either way and hence is ambiguous and potentially misleading.

All you seem to mean is, "Trump voters voted for someone who is racist." Why not say that, and avoid misunderstanding the use of the term "supports"?

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by phiwum

It's not a show of support for those policies except in the limited sense that one finds these policies preferable to the alternative candidate.

Put yourself in the mindset of many Trump voters. I don't ask you to agree with the following beliefs, but imagine that you think that Hillary is a devious crook who will do whatever she can to enrich herself, even at the expense of the nation as a whole. Also, you believe that Trump is inexperienced, regularly lies and attracts racist supporters. Suppose further that you think a devious president like Hillary is a greater risk than an inexperienced president like Trump.

Then your vote does not mean you support racism. It means that, when choosing between these two candidates, Trump is better for the nation than Clinton.

Now, of course, I find these views about the threat Hillary posed compared to Trump ludicrous, that these voters have ignorantly accepted the view of Hillary as a supervillain. Their choice is based on ignorance, undoubtedly, but it does not constitute any real support for racism.

Unless you can argue that any candidate who appeals to racists is worse than literally any candidate who does not, the claim that a vote for Trump indicates support for racism is grossly misleading at best.

I'm sorry, but it's rather simple. Trump used racism in his campaign from day 1. That his would be a racist administration was impossible to miss. Everyone who voted for him knew that they were voting for the racism he had demonstrated. They voted for him anyway. Now they get to own it.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by phiwum

At best, the statement, "X supports racism," could be interpreted either way and hence is ambiguous and potentially misleading.

All you seem to mean is, "Trump voters voted for someone who is racist." Why not say that, and avoid misunderstanding the use of the term "supports"?

Because it drives the point home. Like saying "you killed that teenager" is more effective than saying "you were inebriated while driving and accidentally hit an underage pedestrian with fatal results."

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by phiwum

At best, the statement, "X supports racism," could be interpreted either way and hence is ambiguous and potentially misleading.

All you seem to mean is, "Trump voters voted for someone who is racist." Why not say that, and avoid misunderstanding the use of the term "supports"?

Because the term "support" is correct, and described what Trump voters are doing. They are actively (by voting) supporting what they know is racism.

I recommend you read the article we're talking about. It's a beautiful analogy.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by fuelair

Not to paint out they will be high on the pogram list when it comes!!!!!!!

point damnit!!!!! FTFM

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by phiwum

It's not a show of support for those policies except in the limited sense that one finds these policies preferable to the alternative candidate.

Put yourself in the mindset of many Trump voters. I don't ask you to agree with the following beliefs, but imagine that you think that Hillary is a devious crook who will do whatever she can to enrich herself, even at the expense of the nation as a whole. Also, you believe that Trump is inexperienced, regularly lies and attracts racist supporters. Suppose further that you think a devious president like Hillary is a greater risk than an inexperienced president like Trump.

And since I'm aware of Trump's long history of using every possible trick to enrich himself at the expense of others, and Hillary's long history of working for the benefit of others, I would immediately reject this choice as laughably false.

Quote:

Then your vote does not mean you support racism.

Yeah, it did. I supported it over a projection of some of Trump' bad attributes onto Clinton, but yeah, it would mean that I supported white nationalism, by voting for it.

And this is why I'm laying even harder into people who supposedly aren't personally racist, but who voted for Trump. "Well, Trump's going to harm millions of people due entirely to their race/crewed/ethnicity, but I'd rather not have an unethically greedy president." Ummm...but with Trump, you get both, while with Clinton you'd get neither. That person, if they're telling the truth, just pulled what may well be the biggest mistake of their life, one that will quite literally lead to people dying unnecessarily, and there's really no excuse for it since all the info they needed was easy to find.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

And since I'm aware of Trump's long history of using every possible trick to enrich himself at the expense of others, and Hillary's long history of working for the benefit of others, I would immediately reject this choice as laughably false.



Yeah, it did. I supported it over a projection of some of Trump' bad attributes onto Clinton, but yeah, it would mean that I supported white nationalism, by voting for it.

And this is why I'm laying even harder into people who supposedly aren't personally racist, but who voted for Trump. "Well, Trump's going to harm millions of people due entirely to their race/crewed/ethnicity, but I'd rather not have an unethically greedy president." Ummm...but with Trump, you get both, while with Clinton you'd get neither. That person, if they're telling the truth, just pulled what may well be the biggest mistake of their life, one that will quite literally lead to people dying unnecessarily, and there's really no excuse for it since all the info they needed was easy to find.

This last part is what saddens me and angers me the most. There's a lot of talk about whether Trump voters can be rehabilitated back to reality, but I think that the greatest responsibility must be on each individual person.

Don't want to be called a racist? It hurt your feelings to be called a homophobe? Get angry when people claim you are denying science? Easy remedy: don't vote for racists, homophobes or people who deny science. Educate yourself as to how things actually are (reality) as opposed to how you would prefer things to be.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by uke2se

I'm sorry, but it's rather simple. Trump used racism in his campaign from day 1. That his would be a racist administration was impossible to miss. Everyone who voted for him knew that they were voting for the racism he had demonstrated. They voted for him anyway. Now they get to own it.

You seem to have addressed nothing that I said, and instead repeated your argument.

There's nothing for me to say here. If you'd like to address what I said, which explicitly rebuts your repeated argument, then we can chat, but I'll wait for that.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Because it drives the point home. Like saying "you killed that teenager" is more effective than saying "you were inebriated while driving and accidentally hit an underage pedestrian with fatal results."

The only reason that "This voter supports racism" sounds more effective than "This voter voted for a racist candidate" is the inherent ambiguity of the former and the ability to misinterpret as, "This voter wants to benefit racism."

You're own claim that the first statement is more effective is an admission that it's misleading.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by uke2se

Because the term "support" is correct, and described what Trump voters are doing. They are actively (by voting) supporting what they know is racism.

I recommend you read the article we're talking about. It's a beautiful analogy.

I was unimpressed with the blog post, I'm afraid.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

And since I'm aware of Trump's long history of using every possible trick to enrich himself at the expense of others, and Hillary's long history of working for the benefit of others, I would immediately reject this choice as laughably false.

Yes, and I said that I explicitly found their opinions ignorant. Not sure what your point is. We are not disagreeing here.

Quote:

Yeah, it did. I supported it over a projection of some of Trump' bad attributes onto Clinton, but yeah, it would mean that I supported white nationalism, by voting for it.

And this is why I'm laying even harder into people who supposedly aren't personally racist, but who voted for Trump. "Well, Trump's going to harm millions of people due entirely to their race/crewed/ethnicity, but I'd rather not have an unethically greedy president." Ummm...but with Trump, you get both, while with Clinton you'd get neither. That person, if they're telling the truth, just pulled what may well be the biggest mistake of their life, one that will quite literally lead to people dying unnecessarily, and there's really no excuse for it since all the info they needed was easy to find.

Once again, it rather depends on what "supports" means. You're using a purposely ambiguous phrase in order to infer something which you didn't actually prove, which means your argument is an equivocation fallacy.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by phiwum

The only reason that "This voter supports racism" sounds more effective than "This voter voted for a racist candidate" is the inherent ambiguity of the former and the ability to misinterpret as, "This voter wants to benefit racism."

You're own claim that the first statement is more effective is an admission that it's misleading.

But it isn't, since you yourself admitted that it is equivalent. I don't see why it bothers you or triggers your this-is-wrong detector. If you vote for someone, you support them, literally.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

But it isn't, since you yourself admitted that it is equivalent. I don't see why it bothers you or triggers your this-is-wrong detector. If you vote for someone, you support them, literally.

Apologies for a lengthy response.

It is, of course the ambiguity of the term "supports" that matters.

Suppose that the issue is gun control, say. Suppose that Joe is a candidate who promises to increase gun control, while Fred promises to oppose it.

If I say, "I support gun control," I mean that I either act in some ways in order to promote gun control or at least take a positive attitude towards gun control.

It does not mean that every time I vote, I necessarily choose a pro-gun control candidate. It also does not mean that if I vote for such a candidate, I therefore support gun control. In other words, there is no inconsistency in saying,

I support gun control, but voted for (anti-GC) Fred,

or in saying,

I voted for (pro-GC) Joe, but I do not support gun control.

If our actions have a side effect of benefiting a political stance, we do not therefore necessarily support that stance.

All that said, what is true is this: If I voted for Joe, then I supported gun control by this action, in the wider sense that I acted in a way that benefited gun control (although not necessarily for the sake of doing so). That's a different meaning of "support", a much broader meaning.

I believe the narrower meaning is more common: to support a political end, the person must act for the sake of benefiting the end or at least have a positive attitude towards that end. If I say,

"I support traditional conservative values,"

and you and I agree that Trump was the most conservative candidate this election, it does not follow,

"I voted for Trump."

Similarly, voting for Trump doesn't mean that you support racism.

If you didn't intend to benefit from the ambiguity here, you would use clear, explicit language. Trump voters voted for a racist candidate. This is clear, true (if we agree Trump is racist, and I'm willing to say so for the sake of this argument) and unambiguous.

[phiwum]

Let me try a different explanation.

Suppose that yesterday, I heard hip-hop music while out on the street. Then it would surely be true that "I listened to hip-hop at that time," but not true that "I listen to hip-hop," since I don't do this regularly and I don't intend to start.

Similarly, if you want to say, "Trump voters supported racism this election," then the ambiguity is a bit less heinous. We still may wonder whether it was intentional or not, but because the statement is tensed, the ambiguity is less important.

But "Trump voters support racism," is ambiguous in a bad sense. It sounds as if they intentionally and persistently act to benefit (or take a pro-attitude towards) racism.

So, let me grant that you have an argument for the past-tense statement about Trump voters, but not for the present-tense (really, in this context, more untensed to my mind) statement.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by phiwum

But "Trump voters support racism," is ambiguous in a bad sense. It sounds as if they intentionally and persistently act to benefit (or take a pro-attitude towards) racism.

There is no ambiguity. A voter is someone who votes, and that act defines their position until or unless they say or do otherwise. When Trump voters start telling me that they no longer support Trump's racist policies then I will believe that they have changed their minds...

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

There is no ambiguity. A voter is someone who votes, and that act defines their position until or unless they say or do otherwise. When Trump voters start telling me that they no longer support Trump's racist policies then I will believe that they have changed their minds...

So, you honestly think that I support all of Clinton's policies, until I tell you otherwise?

What nonsense! Surely, very few of us support everything a candidate plans, and much fewer of us this election than usually. Most of us choose a candidate who is a closer fit to our preferences, because that's the best we can do.

Just so there is no misunderstanding: there are many of Clinton's policies that I do not support (and many more that I have no opinions on). Please don't assume that I support everything about her candidacy just because I thought she was better than Trump.

[Shiner]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

If you vote for someone, you support them, literally.

Did you miss the news? It was a big thing. Some headlines called it the first election ever where more people voted against a candidate rather than for one.

"Not that guy/woman"

Your attempts to hang the racist tag on every Trump supporter are the result of some serious tunnel vision.


ETA. Heh. The whole election campaign from both sides was a result of some serious tunnel vision.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by phiwum

Let me try a different explanation.

Suppose that yesterday, I heard hip-hop music while out on the street. Then it would surely be true that "I listened to hip-hop at that time," but not true that "I listen to hip-hop," since I don't do this regularly and I don't intend to start.

Similarly, if you want to say, "Trump voters supported racism this election," then the ambiguity is a bit less heinous. We still may wonder whether it was intentional or not, but because the statement is tensed, the ambiguity is less important.

But "Trump voters support racism," is ambiguous in a bad sense. It sounds as if they intentionally and persistently act to benefit (or take a pro-attitude towards) racism.

So, let me grant that you have an argument for the past-tense statement about Trump voters, but not for the present-tense (really, in this context, more untensed to my mind) statement.

This analogy is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start.

People didn't incidentally vote for Trump. People made a choice, and they had options. They deliberately chose the racist candidate. In many cases they didn't chose him because he was racist, but they chose him despite him being racist. They knew what they were doing. To say that they support racism is simply correct. They actively and knowingly did so, even if what they wanted was something else in the MAGA package. When you make a choice, you are responsible for that choice.

It might have been different if this choice had not affected anyone else, but that's not the case here.

Look at it this way: You buy a gas-guzzling, fume-spewing car because you like the color and you need a 4WD. You are still responsible for the bad effect this car is having on the environment. You made the choice. You could have bought electric, but you didn't.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by phiwum

So, you honestly think that I support all of Clinton's policies, until I tell you otherwise?

Yes. At least in so much as you are responsible for the choice you made.

Originally Posted by phiwum

What nonsense! Surely, very few of us support everything a candidate plans, and much fewer of us this election than usually. Most of us choose a candidate who is a closer fit to our preferences, because that's the best we can do.

And you are responsible for your choice. In this case, that choice was racist or not racist.

Originally Posted by phiwum

Just so there is no misunderstanding: there are many of Clinton's policies that I do not support (and many more that I have no opinions on). Please don't assume that I support everything about her candidacy just because I thought she was better than Trump.

And yet, you are responsible for those policies as well, because you voted for her. Not that it matters too much, as she didn't win. The racist did.