IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , racism charges , racism issues , semantics , Trump controversies

Reply
Old 27th April 2017, 05:05 PM   #81
Modified
Philosopher
 
Modified's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,985
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Actually the left calls him a "racist" because of his comments on Mexicans who have come here and raped and murdered.
But they rape and murder at a rate lower than that of US citizens, while "... some of them, I assume, are good people" was an implication that most of them are murderers and rapists. Unless you thought he meant that some of the rapists and murderers are good people, which is entirely possible.
Modified is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 05:52 PM   #82
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by Modified View Post
But they rape and murder at a rate lower than that of US citizens, while "... some of them, I assume, are good people" was an implication that most of them are murderers and rapists. Unless you thought he meant that some of the rapists and murderers are good people, which is entirely possible.
So he said it wrong, he's a bit dramatic. You can't really blame him, he used to be a democrat. Everyone knew the point he was making, we need to get control of our southern border.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 06:28 PM   #83
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Originally Posted by logger View Post
So he said it wrong, he's a bit dramatic. You can't really blame him, he used to be a democrat. Everyone knew the point he was making, we need to get control of our southern border.
No, the point he was making was "Run! Browner people than you are coming! They're going to take your jobs, murder your neighbors and eat your brains with rusty spoons!"

But do try to keep up. We've established that since Mooslim and Beaner are not races, he can't be a racist and his supporters cannot be racists or racist enablers. Instead, in generally accepted parlance, Trump is a bigot. His supporters are therefore either bigots or bigot-enablers. We assume you will now correct people who say Trump's a racist with..... "LOL Libruls! Conservatives don't see race. We're bigots!"
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 06:38 PM   #84
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
No, the point he was making was "Run! Browner people than you are coming! They're going to take your jobs, murder your neighbors and eat your brains with rusty spoons!"
Lol
I've never heard him say "run brown people are coming" looks like he only talks about sealing our border and stopping illegal immigration. But please continue with your man worthy dramatic rant.
Quote:
But do try to keep up. We've established that since Mooslim and Beaner are not races, he can't be a racist and his supporters cannot be racists or racist enablers. Instead, in generally accepted parlance, Trump is a bigot. His supporters are therefore either bigots or bigot-enablers. We assume you will now correct people who say Trump's a racist with..... "LOL Libruls! Conservatives don't see race. We're bigots!"
Actually he can't be a racists from calling some Mexicans rapists and muderers. Just like he can't be racist against Asians for calling the Chinese currency manipulators. But please, let your rant continue, its very exciting!
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 06:39 PM   #85
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
That was a beautiful "Well, Actually."

They aren't mutually exclusive; they're functionally equivalent. Anyone who expresses one form of bias almost always expresses the other.
I just posted actual law with actual links to actual lawyers opinions and actual statutes that showed that you were actually unmistakably wrong, as a matter of law.

and yet, you decided to post that and made everyone less knowledgeable.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 10:12 PM   #86
Modified
Philosopher
 
Modified's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,985
Originally Posted by logger View Post
So he said it wrong, he's a bit dramatic. You can't really blame him, he used to be a democrat. Everyone knew the point he was making, we need to get control of our southern border.
Said it wrong? Perhaps he meant to say "They're reducing the overall rates of murder and rape slightly by coming here, though increasing the raw numbers a bit." It really came out wrong.

How about something honest that can still support his position? "They're committing identity theft at a high rate, and the overall cost of that crime is probably quite high."
Modified is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 10:17 PM   #87
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I just posted actual law with actual links to actual lawyers opinions and actual statutes that showed that you were actually unmistakably wrong, as a matter of law.

and yet, you decided to post that and made everyone less knowledgeable.
Yeah, that's not really relevant in this context. You've just engaged in a massive equivocation. Why are the standards for workplace discrimination causes of action relevant to what is meant when we describe someone as "racist" or as a "bigot"?

You know, there's a legal definition for "assault" that is rarely meant when someone says an assault took place. Just listing a specific cause of action yields little to no insight on language usage.

Again, this is a doofy "Well, Actually..." It's a comical effort at dissecting an issue that is well understood.

Notice that when ICE goes looking for "Mexicans" they end up harassing a lot of Americans. Why do you think that is? How would you identify a suspicious looking Mexican, compared with someone who was born here?

Last edited by TraneWreck; 27th April 2017 at 10:18 PM.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 11:29 PM   #88
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,726
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Lol
Your post is nothing more than division. Republicans don't think in terms of race, never have
That's not going to fly when the GOP leader is birther Donald Trump, and he's brought white nationalists like Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, and neo-nazis like Sebastian Gorka, into the White House. There's also the obvious attempts at suppressing black voters, the absurd claims that Black Lives Matter is "violent" or "terrorists", the claim that the rapper Common (!) is a "thug" or a "gangsta", the lily-white republicans of around 1900, and so forth, but the current President is more than enough.

For now, the GOP is the party of white supremacy. Don't like it? Get rid of Trump, or at least reign him in, and stop trying to oppress black people and fear-mongering against "Arabs".

Last edited by Mumbles; 27th April 2017 at 11:30 PM.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 02:00 AM   #89
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Lol
Your post is nothing more than division. Republicans don't think in terms of race, never have, this is a monster of the left, which they use to divide people to further their causes.
Your ignorance of history is astounding. In the wake of the Civil Rights movement, Nixon's racist Southern Strategy of supporting "states rights" reversed the meaning the Solid South, which produced the bulk of the Republican political power that you're so proud of today. And speaking of division, you seem to have missed the purging of liberals from the Republican Party and the rise of Rush Limbaugh.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 02:23 AM   #90
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
[quote=superfreddy;11816040]And what race would that be? This is akin to saying Arabic is a race. <snip>

[quote]

Arabic is a language. Arabian is an ethnic origin.
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 03:34 AM   #91
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by Modified View Post

How about something honest that can still support his position? "They're committing identity theft at a high rate, and the overall cost of that crime is probably quite high."
And if he said that, the left wouldn't label him a racist?

Last edited by logger; 28th April 2017 at 03:44 AM.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 03:38 AM   #92
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
That's not going to fly when the GOP leader is birther Donald Trump, and he's brought white nationalists like Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, and neo-nazis like Sebastian Gorka, into the White House. There's also the obvious attempts at suppressing black voters, the absurd claims that Black Lives Matter is "violent" or "terrorists", the claim that the rapper Common (!) is a "thug" or a "gangsta", the lily-white republicans of around 1900, and so forth, but the current President is more than enough.
That you support a racist group like BLM confirms so much.
Quote:
For now, the GOP is the party of white supremacy. Don't like it? Get rid of Trump, or at least reign him in, and stop trying to oppress black people and fear-mongering against "Arabs".
Except your party has had actual known racists as Senator. With a host of others all through government.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 03:42 AM   #93
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Your ignorance of history is astounding. In the wake of the Civil Rights movement, Nixon's racist Southern Strategy of supporting "states rights" reversed the meaning the Solid South, which produced the bulk of the Republican political power that you're so proud of today.
Interesting how so many of those known racist southern democrats were still democrats.

Quote:
And speaking of division, you seem to have missed the purging of liberals from the Republican Party and the rise of Rush Limbaugh.
And you seem to have missed the purging of conservatives from the democrat party. You have maybe one? Joe Manchin and he's a poor one at that. One could argue we have a host of liberal republicans all fearful of the dreaded R word from disgusting liberals!
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 04:34 AM   #94
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
I don't really think there's any confusion here.
Maybe not in this specific case, but the point is that the very broad use of the term will create that confusion down the line, and it'd be a good idea to stop it if we can.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 04:35 AM   #95
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by logger View Post
So he said it wrong, he's a bit dramatic. You can't really blame him, he used to be a democrat.
Oh, that's beautiful! There's so much insane nonsense in that post, I'll just quote it for posterity. It's truly your magnum opus.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 04:37 AM   #96
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Republicans don't think in terms of race, never have, this is a monster of the left, which they use to divide people to further their causes.


You can't possibly believe this. It runs so contrary to reality that no one could possibly think it's true.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 06:44 AM   #97
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by logger View Post
And you seem to have missed the purging of conservatives from the democrat party.
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...
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 07:10 AM   #98
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post


You can't possibly believe this. It runs so contrary to reality that no one could possibly think it's true.
Par for the course.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 07:11 AM   #99
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Maybe not in this specific case, but the point is that the very broad use of the term will create that confusion down the line, and it'd be a good idea to stop it if we can.
Will it? I suspect it is only claimed to cause confusion. As can be seen in this thread the idea is not to refute the accusation but to use it as a smokescreen for the bigotry/racism.
__________________
If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 07:33 AM   #100
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
Yeah, that's not really relevant in this context. You've just engaged in a massive equivocation. Why are the standards for workplace discrimination causes of action relevant to what is meant when we describe someone as "racist" or as a "bigot"?

You know, there's a legal definition for "assault" that is rarely meant when someone says an assault took place. Just listing a specific cause of action yields little to no insight on language usage.

Again, this is a doofy "Well, Actually..." It's a comical effort at dissecting an issue that is well understood.

Notice that when ICE goes looking for "Mexicans" they end up harassing a lot of Americans. Why do you think that is? How would you identify a suspicious looking Mexican, compared with someone who was born here?
While you make a compelling case, I have decided to go ahead and continue being precise and correct.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 07:54 AM   #101
superfreddy
Muse
 
superfreddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 828
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
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.
superfreddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 08:37 AM   #102
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,726
Originally Posted by superfreddy View Post
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.

Last edited by Mumbles; 28th April 2017 at 08:40 AM.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 09:25 AM   #103
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
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":

Quote:
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:

Quote:
... 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...discrimination
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 09:36 AM   #104
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 09:39 AM   #105
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
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...discrimination
That is one hell of an argument for open borders, lol. Another reason to leave the United Nations?
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 09:45 AM   #106
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
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...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
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 10:10 AM   #107
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
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?

Quote:
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."

Quote:
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.

Last edited by TraneWreck; 28th April 2017 at 10:41 AM.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 10:11 AM   #108
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by logger View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 10:16 AM   #109
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by logger View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Last edited by TraneWreck; 28th April 2017 at 10:45 AM.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 10:29 AM   #110
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
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.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 10:31 AM   #111
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,726
Originally Posted by logger View Post
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.

Quote:
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.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 10:44 AM   #112
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
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.

Quote:
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.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 10:46 AM   #113
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
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?
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 10:47 AM   #114
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
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.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 10:48 AM   #115
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by logger View Post
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.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 10:49 AM   #116
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
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.

Quote:
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.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 10:49 AM   #117
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 10:52 AM   #118
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by logger View Post
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.

Quote:
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.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 11:01 AM   #119
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 11:04 AM   #120
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
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.

Quote:

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.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:33 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.