Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?

[LennStar]

You should look into this deeper because from what I have seen, the claim people called the China travel "ban" racist is usually supported by people misrepresenting the facts.

I don't know/remember about individual people saying what about individual bans.

I know that Trump has made several travel bans based on racism (as he twittered so himself) or at least blatently without scientific ground in his time.  Like (totally made up numbers here, but true instance) travel ban on Chinese who had 20 infections per 100K but not on Italy who had 100 infections per 100K. If that comes from someone who always speaks of the Chinese virus, it's hard to not see it as racist.

Maybe the "people misrepresenting the facts" thought "business as usual" if it looked so on first glance? Or maybe they thought it was an honest error that it was not racist lol.

And with that, I tap out. I can't have a conversation with someone that believes Trump holds everyone equal. The amount of data that supports the absolute opposite of that is staggering. Good luck to you.

No no, that is true!
If you aren't his family, ass licker, or opponent your skin color is unimportant. You are simply trash, it doesn't matter if black or white or yellow trash.

[joleran]

You should look into this deeper because from what I have seen, the claim people called the China travel "ban" racist is usually supported by people misrepresenting the facts.

I don't know/remember about individual people saying what about individual bans.

I know that Trump has made several travel bans based on racism (as he twittered so himself) or at least blatently without scientific ground in his time.  Like (totally made up numbers here, but true instance) travel ban on Chinese who had 20 infections per 100K but not on Italy who had 100 infections per 100K. If that comes from someone who always speaks of the Chinese virus, it's hard to not see it as racist.

Maybe the "people misrepresenting the facts" thought "business as usual" if it looked so on first glance? Or maybe they thought it was an honest error that it was not racist lol.

If you trust the Chinese government and their ability to be honest about their numbers, I've got some bridges burning a hole in my pocket that I'm willing to unload very cheaply.  Fun fact - Trump doesn't have perfect foresight but did indeed ban travel from Europe.  It's fine to criticize his speed at doing so, but calling it racist as opposed to just making sense is specious. 

[jinga nation]

This thread has literally become Orange Foam.

[GuitarStv]

If you trust the Chinese government and their ability to be honest about their numbers, I've got some bridges burning a hole in my pocket that I'm willing to unload very cheaply.

Just to confirm . . . you don't trust the Chinese government, but (judging by comments made in this thread) have no issue trusting the Trump government?

Are you trolling?  It really feels like there's some trolling going on here.

[LetItGrow]

I know that Trump has made several travel bans based on racism (as he twittered so himself) or at least blatently without scientific ground in his time. 

I am not a Twitter follower, reader, whatever. I would be interested in seeing a link to a tweet from Trump that specifically says something like ‘I am banning travel from country x because I am a racist and want to keep that specific race out of America' Or I guess '...because racists have asked me to and I want their vote'.

The existence of such a tweet is a fact I perceive you as representing.

[sherr]

I know that Trump has made several travel bans based on racism (as he twittered so himself) or at least blatently without scientific ground in his time. 

I am not a Twitter follower, reader, whatever. I would be interested in seeing a link to a tweet from Trump that specifically says something like ‘I am banning travel from country x because I am a racist and want to keep that specific race out of America' Or I guess '...because racists have asked me to and I want their vote'.

The existence of such a tweet is a fact I perceive you as representing.

You're asking for an impossible level of evidence. No one actually says they're racist, no one actually even believes they're racist. They simply believe that they're "willing to accept uncomfortable truths" or something.

That doesn't meant that racists don't exist, or that blatantly racist actions don't exist.

[GuitarStv]

I know that Trump has made several travel bans based on racism (as he twittered so himself) or at least blatently without scientific ground in his time. 

I am not a Twitter follower, reader, whatever. I would be interested in seeing a link to a tweet from Trump that specifically says something like ‘I am banning travel from country x because I am a racist and want to keep that specific race out of America' Or I guess '...because racists have asked me to and I want their vote'.

The existence of such a tweet is a fact I perceive you as representing.

You're asking for an impossible level of evidence. No one actually says they're racist, no one actually even believes they're racist. They simply believe that they're "willing to accept uncomfortable truths" or something.

That doesn't meant that racists don't exist, or that blatantly racist actions don't exist.

Trump said that a Mexican judge was incapable of doing his job as a judge because of his heritage.  This caused Paul Ryan to comment that Trump had made the "textbook definition of a racist comment".

There are many more.  Donald Trump is blatantly racist by his words and actions.


If you want to get into travel bans, Donald Trump called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." and then started implementing travel bans from majority Muslim countries.

[sherr]

If you want to get into travel bans, Donald Trump called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." and then started implementing travel bans from majority Muslim countries.

"But Muslims aren't a race" </sarcasm>

[joleran]

If you trust the Chinese government and their ability to be honest about their numbers, I've got some bridges burning a hole in my pocket that I'm willing to unload very cheaply.

Just to confirm . . . you don't trust the Chinese government, but (judging by comments made in this thread) have no issue trusting the Trump government?

Comparatively?  Yeah, I'll make that bet any day of the week.  Trump is a bit of a dick, but he's not "let's make the actual world war 2 Nazis look good" bad.  Recency bias may be coloring my opinion, but basically everything the left claims to care about is being grossly violated by the Chinese government but that government doesn't catch much heat on it because orange man bad.

Trump said that a Mexican judge was incapable of doing his job as a judge because of his heritage.  This caused Paul Ryan to comment that Trump had made the "textbook definition of a racist comment".

There are many more.  Donald Trump is blatantly racist by his words and actions.

If you want to get into travel bans, Donald Trump called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." and then started implementing travel bans from majority Muslim countries.

This is not racism.  In-group bias is a real thing and it does not depend on being or not being a certain race or religion.

[GuitarStv]

If you trust the Chinese government and their ability to be honest about their numbers, I've got some bridges burning a hole in my pocket that I'm willing to unload very cheaply.

Just to confirm . . . you don't trust the Chinese government, but (judging by comments made in this thread) have no issue trusting the Trump government?

Comparatively?  Yeah, I'll make that bet any day of the week.  Trump is a bit of a dick, but he's not "let's make the actual world war 2 Nazis look good" bad.  Recency bias may be coloring my opinion, but basically everything the left claims to care about is being grossly violated by the Chinese government but that government doesn't catch much heat on it because orange man bad.

Trump said that a Mexican judge was incapable of doing his job as a judge because of his heritage.  This caused Paul Ryan to comment that Trump had made the "textbook definition of a racist comment".

There are many more.  Donald Trump is blatantly racist by his words and actions.

If you want to get into travel bans, Donald Trump called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." and then started implementing travel bans from majority Muslim countries.

This is not racism.  In-group bias is a real thing and it does not depend on being or not being a certain race or religion.

Could you define exactly what you believe to be 'real racism' then please?

[joleran]

Could you define exactly what you believe to be 'real racism' then please?

The belief that people with certain genetic heritage are better or worse than other people with different genetic heritage.

[GuitarStv]

Could you define exactly what you believe to be 'real racism' then please?

The belief that people with certain genetic heritage are better or worse than other people with different genetic heritage.

So, when someone says that a person of Mexican heritage can't do his job because of his heritage . . . this would be an indication of racism?

[bbqbonelesswing]

Could you define exactly what you believe to be 'real racism' then please?

The belief that people with certain genetic heritage are better or worse than other people with different genetic heritage.

Is this real racism?

https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history

1973: The US Department of Justice — under the Nixon administration, out of all administrations — sued the Trump Management Corporation for violating the Fair Housing Act. Federal officials found evidence that Trump had refused to rent to Black tenants and lied to Black applicants about whether apartments were available, among other accusations. Trump said the federal government was trying to get him to rent to welfare recipients. In the aftermath, he signed an agreement in 1975 agreeing not to discriminate to renters of color without admitting to previous discrimination.

1991: A book by John O’Donnell, former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, quoted Trump’s criticism of a Black accountant: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.” Trump later said in a 1997 Playboy interview that “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.”

1992: The Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino had to pay a $200,000 fine because it transferred Black and women dealers off tables to accommodate a big-time gambler’s prejudices.

[wildbeast]

If you trust the Chinese government and their ability to be honest about their numbers, I've got some bridges burning a hole in my pocket that I'm willing to unload very cheaply.

Just to confirm . . . you don't trust the Chinese government, but (judging by comments made in this thread) have no issue trusting the Trump government?

Comparatively?  Yeah, I'll make that bet any day of the week.  Trump is a bit of a dick, but he's not "let's make the actual world war 2 Nazis look good" bad.  Recency bias may be coloring my opinion, but basically everything the left claims to care about is being grossly violated by the Chinese government but that government doesn't catch much heat on it because orange man bad.

Trump said that a Mexican judge was incapable of doing his job as a judge because of his heritage.  This caused Paul Ryan to comment that Trump had made the "textbook definition of a racist comment".

There are many more.  Donald Trump is blatantly racist by his words and actions.

If you want to get into travel bans, Donald Trump called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." and then started implementing travel bans from majority Muslim countries.

This is not racism.  In-group bias is a real thing and it does not depend on being or not being a certain race or religion.

@joleran - I think we all understand your position.  At this point you are antagonistic and are creating an unpleasant and hostile environment.  I would ask you to please leave the conversation.  Thank you.

[joleran]

So, when someone says that a person of Mexican heritage can't do his job because of his heritage . . . this would be an indication of racism?

In-group bias does not care about race in the absolute sense.  There is no logical argument that a person of Mexican heritage is inherently worse than someone not of that background.  There is, however, an argument that such a person is less likely to judge people of the same heritage the same as people of other backgrounds.  It is exactly the same and just as wrong to allow "white privilege" to give unfair advantages to people with that skin color to get unfair passes in the justice system.

[joleran]

Is this real racism?

https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history

1973: The US Department of Justice — under the Nixon administration, out of all administrations — sued the Trump Management Corporation for violating the Fair Housing Act. Federal officials found evidence that Trump had refused to rent to Black tenants and lied to Black applicants about whether apartments were available, among other accusations. Trump said the federal government was trying to get him to rent to welfare recipients. In the aftermath, he signed an agreement in 1975 agreeing not to discriminate to renters of color without admitting to previous discrimination.

1991: A book by John O’Donnell, former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, quoted Trump’s criticism of a Black accountant: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.” Trump later said in a 1997 Playboy interview that “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.”

1992: The Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino had to pay a $200,000 fine because it transferred Black and women dealers off tables to accommodate a big-time gambler’s prejudices.

Yes, this is real racism.  Biden also was incredibly racist in the 1970's.  It does not excuse it and I would hope for a public disclaiming of these positions, but that is unlikely to happen given the political reality of this not helping a candidates position for either their supporters or detractors.

[GuitarStv]

So, when someone says that a person of Mexican heritage can't do his job because of his heritage . . . this would be an indication of racism?

In-group bias does not care about race in the absolute sense.  There is no logical argument that a person of Mexican heritage is inherently worse than someone not of that background.  There is, however, an argument that such a person is less likely to judge people of the same heritage the same as people of other backgrounds.  It is exactly the same and just as wrong to allow "white privilege" to give unfair advantages to people with that skin color to get unfair passes in the justice system.

Trump argued that an American of Mexican heritage was unable to do his job.  That was an argument that a person is inherently worse than someone not of that background - as the (purely imagined) 'in-group bias' wouldn't exist for anyone else..

Your logic on this doesn't appear to follow.

[wildbeast]

I propose a social experiment.

From this moment forward, we all ignore joleran.  Just completely ignore him no matter what he says.  I know it's hard to refrain from arguing, but it's pointless.  Let's see what being invisible feels like to him.

[joleran]

Trump argued that an American of Mexican heritage was unable to do his job.  That was an argument that a person is inherently worse than someone not of that background - as the (purely imagined) 'in-group bias' wouldn't exist for anyone else..

Your logic on this doesn't appear to follow.

I'm not familiar with this instance but would like to learn more if you have a link.  On its face, I don't agree that in-group bias is imagined (it is actually well-studied and predictable) or that it was unreasonable to discriminate based on such potential bias.

I propose a social experiment.

From this moment forward, we all ignore joleran.  Just completely ignore him no matter what he says.  I know it's hard to refrain from arguing, but it's pointless.  Let's see what being invisible feels like to him.

The reality of various minorities in the US of being ignored and their voices not being heard - this is a serious problem.  I will continue to treat everyone as equals in good faith and hope you will do the same despite your hatred for my positions.

[By the River]

I abhor Trump and the values (or lack of, to be more exact) he represents, but I didn't vote because for me too much depends on the relationship in question. If a person has enough redeeming qualities on their own, then perhaps I can look past their support of Trump. I wouldn't be likely to form a close relationship or friendship with anyone who actively supports racism, locking up children, white supremacy, lying, destroying the environment, corruption, wooing dictators, destroying democracy and norms, and all the other things Trump displays. But I'll say that many of the Trump supporters I know (and even love) are woefully ignorant about Trump's debasing behavior. I don't approve of their ignorance, of course, but they are not bad people.

You know that many believe Obama was active in all the bolded areas, right?   (Destroying democracy and norms and all the other things would include wiretapping journalists (James Rosen, 20 AP phone lines); Killing US citizens with drone strikes; asking the FBI to keep them informed of the new admin when out of power; etc.)  Therefore, welcome to the libertarian party for everyone that said yes.

This is completely disingenuous, whether Republicans or Libertarians are doing it.

Obama "locked up children" technically yes, but as a last resort only when the law absolutely required it. Trump made a show of eagerly tearing families apart with no capability or plans for ever re-uniting them in order to dis-incentivize misdemeanor border-hoppers.   The original statement was that "locking up children" there was no limitation on number or reason or anything.

The "lying" bit is probably referring to being "able to keep your doctor/plan" under the ACA, which may not have been universally true but was still true for the vast majority of people. Most people's insurance plan did not evaporate after the ACA.  Yes, that was one of them but the Washington Post has a short list of 10 of his lies that they had marked as Pinocchios of the year.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/19/obamas-biggest-whoppers/

Obama and corruption? How? Just because intelligence agencies acted on information about the Trump<->Russia connection, a lot of which has been born out in subsequent investigations?  Look into the millions given to Solyndra and into Fast and Furious gun-running for two

Obama and dictators? Again how? Because extreme partisans claim he "showered them with cash and concessions", aka actually negotiated with them to further the US's interests without starting a war?  Was going to a baseball game with Raoul Castro "wooing dictators"?  Is that better than Trump and Jong-un meeting at the DMZ?

No one seriously believes that killing an enemy combatant in the middle of a war is actually unconstitutional just because he happened to be a citizen, not even Republicans.I'll give you that one

I can't find anything saying that Obama wanted the FBI to "keep him informed after he was out of power", got a source for that? The Susan Rice memo to herself.  Here's a copy on CBS twitter https://twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/status/1262820374548447238/photo/1  Let Obama know through the next few weeks (after he was out of office)

You can equate the Obama administration and the Trump administration all you want, but I doubt any reasonable people who lived through both are going to be convinced. They're simply not comparable.  Again, the original was an absolute statement of things that were deal breakers. 

Again, Jo Jorgensen is a much better candidate that 2016's Gary Johnson.   Look into her before voting. 

[Kris]

I abhor Trump and the values (or lack of, to be more exact) he represents, but I didn't vote because for me too much depends on the relationship in question. If a person has enough redeeming qualities on their own, then perhaps I can look past their support of Trump. I wouldn't be likely to form a close relationship or friendship with anyone who actively supports racism, locking up children, white supremacy, lying, destroying the environment, corruption, wooing dictators, destroying democracy and norms, and all the other things Trump displays. But I'll say that many of the Trump supporters I know (and even love) are woefully ignorant about Trump's debasing behavior. I don't approve of their ignorance, of course, but they are not bad people.

You know that many believe Obama was active in all the bolded areas, right?   (Destroying democracy and norms and all the other things would include wiretapping journalists (James Rosen, 20 AP phone lines); Killing US citizens with drone strikes; asking the FBI to keep them informed of the new admin when out of power; etc.)  Therefore, welcome to the libertarian party for everyone that said yes.

This is completely disingenuous, whether Republicans or Libertarians are doing it.

Obama "locked up children" technically yes, but as a last resort only when the law absolutely required it. Trump made a show of eagerly tearing families apart with no capability or plans for ever re-uniting them in order to dis-incentivize misdemeanor border-hoppers.   The original statement was that "locking up children" there was no limitation on number or reason or anything.

The "lying" bit is probably referring to being "able to keep your doctor/plan" under the ACA, which may not have been universally true but was still true for the vast majority of people. Most people's insurance plan did not evaporate after the ACA.  Yes, that was one of them but the Washington Post has a short list of 10 of his lies that they had marked as Pinocchios of the year.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/19/obamas-biggest-whoppers/

Obama and corruption? How? Just because intelligence agencies acted on information about the Trump<->Russia connection, a lot of which has been born out in subsequent investigations?  Look into the millions given to Solyndra and into Fast and Furious gun-running for two

Obama and dictators? Again how? Because extreme partisans claim he "showered them with cash and concessions", aka actually negotiated with them to further the US's interests without starting a war?  Was going to a baseball game with Raoul Castro "wooing dictators"?  Is that better than Trump and Jong-un meeting at the DMZ?

No one seriously believes that killing an enemy combatant in the middle of a war is actually unconstitutional just because he happened to be a citizen, not even Republicans.I'll give you that one

I can't find anything saying that Obama wanted the FBI to "keep him informed after he was out of power", got a source for that? The Susan Rice memo to herself.  Here's a copy on CBS twitter https://twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/status/1262820374548447238/photo/1  Let Obama know through the next few weeks (after he was out of office)

You can equate the Obama administration and the Trump administration all you want, but I doubt any reasonable people who lived through both are going to be convinced. They're simply not comparable.  Again, the original was an absolute statement of things that were deal breakers. 

Again, Jo Jorgensen is a much better candidate that 2016's Gary Johnson.   Look into her before voting.

I’m sorry, how is Jorgensen a better candidate than Johnson was? And don’t tell me to look into her. I have. From what I can tell, she has no experience, no track record, and no relevant qualifications.

[sherr]

I can't find anything saying that Obama wanted the FBI to "keep him informed after he was out of power", got a source for that?

The Susan Rice memo to herself.  Here's a copy on CBS twitter https://twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/status/1262820374548447238/photo/1  Let Obama know through the next few weeks (after he was out of office).

You need to be more careful who you get your news from, because that's a pure lie. The memo says at the top that its a summary of a conversation that happened on Jan 5. Obama was president through Jan 20, so "next few weeks" is NOT after he is out of office. Also Obama is very clearly expressing a desire to do things "by the book" throughout. And the full sentence is: "The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that would should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team", which of course directly implies that it's during his last few weeks of the presidency.

There is nothing even remotely improper about that memo.

[GreenToTheCore]

Could you define exactly what you believe to be 'real racism' then please?

The belief that people with certain genetic heritage are better or worse than other people with different genetic heritage.

So...Like saying, "You have good genes. A lot of it’s about the genes, isn’t it? Don’t you believe? The racehorse theory you think was so different? You have good genes in Minnesota."?

Sept 18th, Campaign Rally Speech Bemidji, Minnesota
Complete recording & transcript:
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-campaign-rally-speech-bemidji-minnesota-transcript-september-18

[joleran]

Could you define exactly what you believe to be 'real racism' then please?

The belief that people with certain genetic heritage are better or worse than other people with different genetic heritage.

So...Like saying, "You have good genes. A lot of it’s about the genes, isn’t it? Don’t you believe? The racehorse theory you think was so different? You have good genes in Minnesota."?

Sept 18th, Campaign Rally Speech Bemidji, Minnesota
Complete recording & transcript:
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-campaign-rally-speech-bemidji-minnesota-transcript-september-18

You have an excellent point here and its very easy to ascribe racial motivations to that sort of statement.  I would however split and separate the ideas behind some desirable genetic traits being inheritable and deciding that race is one such trait. 

[Kris]

People who are determined not to see racism are... determined not to see racism. For them, they take cover in pretending that the only actual evidence of racism is someone brutalizing another person while literally saying out loud, in front of witnesses, "I am a racist, and I am doing this act for racist reasons."

It's not worth arguing with someone who is determined to be willfully blind.

[joleran]

People who are determined not to see racism are... determined not to see racism. For them, they take cover in pretending that the only actual evidence of racism is someone brutalizing another person while literally saying out loud, in front of witnesses, "I am a racist, and I am doing this act for racist reasons."

It's not worth arguing with someone who is determined to be willfully blind.

It is very easy to turn that argument around and contend that people who set out to see racism will find it in abundance, despite the perplexing absence of actual racial hate crimes and the rise of incidents on e.g. http://www.fakehatecrimes.org/

I will instead argue again for a world where we do not see the color of a person's skin as important, that culture matters and not all cultures are acceptable,  and that identity politics that attempt to divide people into groups based on superficial criteria are terribly dehumanizing and demoralizing.

[Kris]

People who are determined not to see racism are... determined not to see racism. For them, they take cover in pretending that the only actual evidence of racism is someone brutalizing another person while literally saying out loud, in front of witnesses, "I am a racist, and I am doing this act for racist reasons."

It's not worth arguing with someone who is determined to be willfully blind.

It is very easy to turn that argument around and contend that people who set out to see racism will find it in abundance, despite the perplexing absence of actual racial hate crimes and the rise of incidents on e.g. http://www.fakehatecrimes.org/

I will instead argue again for a world where we do not see the color of a person's skin as important, that culture matters and not all cultures are acceptable,  and that identity politics that attempt to divide people into groups based on superficial criteria are terribly dehumanizing and demoralizing.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/culturally-speaking/201112/colorblind-ideology-is-form-racism

[joleran]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/culturally-speaking/201112/colorblind-ideology-is-form-racism

I'm aware of the argument but reject it with every fiber of my being.  Calling this outlook out as racism is racism.  Telling people that the color of their skin matters because of their lived experiences may be superficially true, but it should by no means be a goal that is accepted.  It is terrible to consider accepting this as an incontrovertible truth as opposed to an anachronism that needs to die.

[Sibley]

Answering the original question....

Trump himself is not a relationship deal breaker, though supporting Trump could be an indication of the things that are deal breakers.

Meaning, I try to be a kind and fair individual. (I'm not going to say I succeed all the time, but I try). I'm also decently educated. Someone who is openly racist, cruel, spouting ignorant beliefs/disregarding credible experts, etc - that is probably not someone who I want to hang out with. Whether they support Trump, Biden, or the little green men on Mars is irrelevant. Someone who is these things but it's more subtle/below the surface, I'm unlikely to welcome a close relationship with, but I can be friendly and polite.

Example:
My neighbor is a Trump supporter. He's also racist. Basically, he's a hillbilly, a nutcase, etc. At the same time, he's a decent human being. He may be racist, but if there were someone passing by who needed help, he'd help out. I'm aware of all this. I'm friendly with this neighbor, but he's not going to be a close friend of mine.

My mother is a Trump supporter. She's turned anti-vax, she's prey to conspiracy theories. She's racist. And a lot of why is because she's older, her health isn't great, and she has isolated herself to such an extent that this is what happened. She's scared and uncertain about the future, and what she has chosen to cling to is not actually what's going to make anything better. But fear isn't rational. She's my mom, and I love her - but I don't discuss politics with her, and frankly our relationship has become fairly superficial. She could change that, but it's going to take some effort on her part before I'm willing to trust her.

People are complicated. A person can be a monster to some people and perfectly nice to others. This is not a contradiction, it's a reality of the complexity of human nature. Trying to put everyone into a neat box doesn't work. Trying to deny that is only going to make things worse, but accepting it isn't easy.

[joleran]

My mother is a Trump supporter. She's turned anti-vax, she's prey to conspiracy theories. She's racist. And a lot of why is because she's older, her health isn't great, and she has isolated herself to such an extent that this is what happened. She's scared and uncertain about the future, and what she has chosen to cling to is not actually what's going to make anything better. But fear isn't rational. She's my mom, and I love her - but I don't discuss politics with her, and frankly our relationship has become fairly superficial. She could change that, but it's going to take some effort on her part before I'm willing to trust her.

People are complicated. A person can be a monster to some people and perfectly nice to others. This is not a contradiction, it's a reality of the complexity of human nature. Trying to put everyone into a neat box doesn't work. Trying to deny that is only going to make things worse, but accepting it isn't easy.

My mom is also a bit on the fringe and I don't agree with her excessive support for Trump. It's a matter of making the best of a bad situation. I voted for Obama... twice.  He was pleasantly conservative and an amazing politician.  The ACA is fantastic and is one of the biggest outstanding disagreements I have with Republicans and a key issue given its current state of endangerment.  I generally like Biden's tax plan but have some long term concerns about encroachment on the middle class's finances.  That said, racial hatred and identity politics cannot be tolerated no matter how good the rest of the positions are. 

[Villanelle]

Answering the original question....

Trump himself is not a relationship deal breaker, though supporting Trump could be an indication of the things that are deal breakers.

Meaning, I try to be a kind and fair individual. (I'm not going to say I succeed all the time, but I try). I'm also decently educated. Someone who is openly racist, cruel, spouting ignorant beliefs/disregarding credible experts, etc - that is probably not someone who I want to hang out with. Whether they support Trump, Biden, or the little green men on Mars is irrelevant. Someone who is these things but it's more subtle/below the surface, I'm unlikely to welcome a close relationship with, but I can be friendly and polite.

Example:
My neighbor is a Trump supporter. He's also racist. Basically, he's a hillbilly, a nutcase, etc. At the same time, he's a decent human being. He may be racist, but if there were someone passing by who needed help, he'd help out. I'm aware of all this. I'm friendly with this neighbor, but he's not going to be a close friend of mine.

My mother is a Trump supporter. She's turned anti-vax, she's prey to conspiracy theories. She's racist. And a lot of why is because she's older, her health isn't great, and she has isolated herself to such an extent that this is what happened. She's scared and uncertain about the future, and what she has chosen to cling to is not actually what's going to make anything better. But fear isn't rational. She's my mom, and I love her - but I don't discuss politics with her, and frankly our relationship has become fairly superficial. She could change that, but it's going to take some effort on her part before I'm willing to trust her.

People are complicated. A person can be a monster to some people and perfectly nice to others. This is not a contradiction, it's a reality of the complexity of human nature. Trying to put everyone into a neat box doesn't work. Trying to deny that is only going to make things worse, but accepting it isn't easy.

My thinking is evolving to the point that I don't think I can any longer llow myself to say, "so-and-so is a good person, and he's also racist [or misogynistic, or....]."  Some sins/faults/actions are so egregious and dangerous that they negate all other good acts, if I have to make an overall call about someone goodness, or not.  BTK was head of his church council and active in his community, including being a Scout leader.  What a good guy!  Of course, he also tortured and murdered women, men, and children as young as 9.  But wow was he generous with his time.  Does that make him decent?  Not by nearly any metric.  And I guess for me, the line with what makes "decent" has shifted because I feel like I can't any longer sit in my position of relative privilege and make excuses for people who cause tremendous suffering to their fellow man. 

Yes, people are complicated.  They can be more than one thing. More than one thing can be true.  But if I have to make a call on whether someone goes in the "decent" box or not, openly racist (as opposed to the racial biases that nearly all of us subconsciously have) disqualifies one from the label of decency if we aren't allowing room for nuance. I wouldn't go out of my way to always call them "not-decent" based on that alone, but I certainly wouldn't use "decent" as a descriptor, either. 

[Metalcat]

Answering the original question....

Trump himself is not a relationship deal breaker, though supporting Trump could be an indication of the things that are deal breakers.

Meaning, I try to be a kind and fair individual. (I'm not going to say I succeed all the time, but I try). I'm also decently educated. Someone who is openly racist, cruel, spouting ignorant beliefs/disregarding credible experts, etc - that is probably not someone who I want to hang out with. Whether they support Trump, Biden, or the little green men on Mars is irrelevant. Someone who is these things but it's more subtle/below the surface, I'm unlikely to welcome a close relationship with, but I can be friendly and polite.

Example:
My neighbor is a Trump supporter. He's also racist. Basically, he's a hillbilly, a nutcase, etc. At the same time, he's a decent human being. He may be racist, but if there were someone passing by who needed help, he'd help out. I'm aware of all this. I'm friendly with this neighbor, but he's not going to be a close friend of mine.

My mother is a Trump supporter. She's turned anti-vax, she's prey to conspiracy theories. She's racist. And a lot of why is because she's older, her health isn't great, and she has isolated herself to such an extent that this is what happened. She's scared and uncertain about the future, and what she has chosen to cling to is not actually what's going to make anything better. But fear isn't rational. She's my mom, and I love her - but I don't discuss politics with her, and frankly our relationship has become fairly superficial. She could change that, but it's going to take some effort on her part before I'm willing to trust her.

People are complicated. A person can be a monster to some people and perfectly nice to others. This is not a contradiction, it's a reality of the complexity of human nature. Trying to put everyone into a neat box doesn't work. Trying to deny that is only going to make things worse, but accepting it isn't easy.

My thinking is evolving to the point that I don't think I can any longer llow myself to say, "so-and-so is a good person, and he's also racist [or misogynistic, or....]."  Some sins/faults/actions are so egregious and dangerous that they negate all other good acts, if I have to make an overall call about someone goodness, or not.  BTK was head of his church council and active in his community, including being a Scout leader.  What a good guy!  Of course, he also tortured and murdered women, men, and children as young as 9.  But wow was he generous with his time.  Does that make him decent?  Not by nearly any metric.  And I guess for me, the line with what makes "decent" has shifted because I feel like I can't any longer sit in my position of relative privilege and make excuses for people who cause tremendous suffering to their fellow man. 

Yes, people are complicated.  They can be more than one thing. More than one thing can be true.  But if I have to make a call on whether someone goes in the "decent" box or not, openly racist (as opposed to the racial biases that nearly all of us subconsciously have) disqualifies one from the label of decency if we aren't allowing room for nuance. I wouldn't go out of my way to always call them "not-decent" based on that alone, but I certainly wouldn't use "decent" as a descriptor, either.

Yeah, if someone isn't decent with people because of their race, but super awesome with their own race...uh, yeah, they're not a decent person.

Most people who are total monsters to some seem like eminently decent people to many others.

[LetItGrow]

I propose a social experiment.

From this moment forward, we all ignore joleran.  Just completely ignore him no matter what he says.  I know it's hard to refrain from arguing, but it's pointless.  Let's see what being invisible feels like to him.

Let's get a rope...Now that’s a social experiment.

Nice you are trying to gain support in an attempt to bully joleran. Luckily, it appears you were the one ignored. Joleran has been pretty upfront and thoughtful in replies.

[mm1970]

People who are determined not to see racism are... determined not to see racism. For them, they take cover in pretending that the only actual evidence of racism is someone brutalizing another person while literally saying out loud, in front of witnesses, "I am a racist, and I am doing this act for racist reasons."

It's not worth arguing with someone who is determined to be willfully blind.

Basically.

As an aside, I recently finished reading "How to be an Anti-Racist".  I'd suggest joleran read it, but it would go over their head, completely.

Again, Jo Jorgensen is a much better candidate that 2016's Gary Johnson.   Look into her before voting.

Yeah, that's a HARD no.

[bbqbonelesswing]

Joleran has been pretty upfront and thoughtful in replies.

LOL

[joleran]

I don't agree with the left's position on this, but I certainly respect everyone's ability to think for themselves even if I disagree with the conclusions drawn. We all presumably want equality for all, but each feel that there are core problems with the morality of each others positions and/or the effectiveness of proposed solutions, right?  I don't feel this makes a person with a different opinion stupid, obstinate, or worthy of being personally insulted - we just don't see things the same way.  This is a critical time in history to come together and respect each others views before things (in the worst case) go beyond the possibility of civil discourse. 

Won't you please join with me to declare once again that all people are created equal and come together to celebrate what we share in common rather than highlight the differences that tend to divide us?

[LWYRUP]

The increasing inability of people in our country to speak to each other across ideological and identity divides is an enormous problem, and character assassinations for someone trying to share a different view in good faith are totally inappropriate and are contrary to the ideals of a true liberal (free, open-minded, based on ideas, non-violent mediation of conflict) democracy.  People who do this sort of stuff can call themselves progressive if they like, but they really should stop calling themselves liberal, because they objectively aren't. 

I'm voting third party this year because we need a different way than this. 

[RetiredAt63]

The increasing inability of people in our country to speak to each other across ideological and identity divides is an enormous problem, and character assassinations for someone trying to share a different view in good faith are totally inappropriate and are contrary to the ideals of a true liberal (free, open-minded, based on ideas, non-violent mediation of conflict) democracy.  People who do this sort of stuff can call themselves progressive if they like, but they really should stop calling themselves liberal, because they objectively aren't. 

I'm voting third party this year because we need a different way than this.

Not telling you how to vote.  I have protest voted myself enough to know how one can hope one is sending a message by voting for a candidate who has no chance.

The question I ask myself each time is "is there a possibility that my protest vote will help elect a candidate I really really do not want to see win?".  If I know that a candidate I am OK with will most likely win (it's a safe riding) or I know that a candidate I don't like is a shoo-in, I message vote.  If there is a possibility that a candidate I really don't want might win, I metaphorically hold my nose and vote strategically.  It beats sitting there on election night and looking at all the votes that went to protest votes that could have made a difference.

So please consider,  looking at your own riding, if this is third party vote time or hold your nose vote time.

And then get involved.  I think a big mistake most of us make, myself included, is have our vote be our only message.  We need to write/phone our reps, do other actions, to push for the positive changes we want.  I've done a few things, but not nearly as many as I could/should have done.  I have seen results when groups of us took action, so change can happen.

[LWYRUP]

The increasing inability of people in our country to speak to each other across ideological and identity divides is an enormous problem, and character assassinations for someone trying to share a different view in good faith are totally inappropriate and are contrary to the ideals of a true liberal (free, open-minded, based on ideas, non-violent mediation of conflict) democracy.  People who do this sort of stuff can call themselves progressive if they like, but they really should stop calling themselves liberal, because they objectively aren't. 

I'm voting third party this year because we need a different way than this.

Not telling you how to vote.  I have protest voted myself enough to know how one can hope one is sending a message by voting for a candidate who has no chance.

The question I ask myself each time is "is there a possibility that my protest vote will help elect a candidate I really really do not want to see win?".  If I know that a candidate I am OK with will most likely win (it's a safe riding) or I know that a candidate I don't like is a shoo-in, I message vote.  If there is a possibility that a candidate I really don't want might win, I metaphorically hold my nose and vote strategically.  It beats sitting there on election night and looking at all the votes that went to protest votes that could have made a difference.

So please consider,  looking at your own riding, if this is third party vote time or hold your nose vote time.

And then get involved.  I think a big mistake most of us make, myself included, is have our vote be our only message.  We need to write/phone our reps, do other actions, to push for the positive changes we want.  I've done a few things, but not nearly as many as I could/should have done.  I have seen results when groups of us took action, so change can happen.

Thanks.  I do appreciate the comment.  I don't live in a swing state, so I know my vote won't impact the actual election -- maybe only the perceptions, infinitesimally, but I'd prefer to roll the dice on that.  I thought about this a lot, and I want to feel like the person I voted for will support a reasonable amount of my personal values, will act with integrity, and has supporters that fundamentally respect everyone in the country and want to work to make it better even for people different than them.  It seems like it's only obscure third parties that can clearly check all those boxes right now.

If I lived in a swing state I'd make a different calculation because I know the stakes are high and we need a new chapter. 

[Just Joe]

Yeah, if someone isn't decent with people because of their race, but super awesome with their own race...uh, yeah, they're not a decent person.

Most people who are total monsters to some seem like eminently decent people to many others.

Remind me of high school bullies and the kids who made excuses for them. Well, she's nice to me... As if that is all that mattered. (You may be in a miserable spot but that doesn't matter to me. I'll keep being friends with Sue).

 

[Sibley]

Answering the original question....

Trump himself is not a relationship deal breaker, though supporting Trump could be an indication of the things that are deal breakers.

Meaning, I try to be a kind and fair individual. (I'm not going to say I succeed all the time, but I try). I'm also decently educated. Someone who is openly racist, cruel, spouting ignorant beliefs/disregarding credible experts, etc - that is probably not someone who I want to hang out with. Whether they support Trump, Biden, or the little green men on Mars is irrelevant. Someone who is these things but it's more subtle/below the surface, I'm unlikely to welcome a close relationship with, but I can be friendly and polite.

Example:
My neighbor is a Trump supporter. He's also racist. Basically, he's a hillbilly, a nutcase, etc. At the same time, he's a decent human being. He may be racist, but if there were someone passing by who needed help, he'd help out. I'm aware of all this. I'm friendly with this neighbor, but he's not going to be a close friend of mine.

My mother is a Trump supporter. She's turned anti-vax, she's prey to conspiracy theories. She's racist. And a lot of why is because she's older, her health isn't great, and she has isolated herself to such an extent that this is what happened. She's scared and uncertain about the future, and what she has chosen to cling to is not actually what's going to make anything better. But fear isn't rational. She's my mom, and I love her - but I don't discuss politics with her, and frankly our relationship has become fairly superficial. She could change that, but it's going to take some effort on her part before I'm willing to trust her.

People are complicated. A person can be a monster to some people and perfectly nice to others. This is not a contradiction, it's a reality of the complexity of human nature. Trying to put everyone into a neat box doesn't work. Trying to deny that is only going to make things worse, but accepting it isn't easy.

My thinking is evolving to the point that I don't think I can any longer llow myself to say, "so-and-so is a good person, and he's also racist [or misogynistic, or....]."  Some sins/faults/actions are so egregious and dangerous that they negate all other good acts, if I have to make an overall call about someone goodness, or not.  BTK was head of his church council and active in his community, including being a Scout leader.  What a good guy!  Of course, he also tortured and murdered women, men, and children as young as 9.  But wow was he generous with his time.  Does that make him decent?  Not by nearly any metric.  And I guess for me, the line with what makes "decent" has shifted because I feel like I can't any longer sit in my position of relative privilege and make excuses for people who cause tremendous suffering to their fellow man. 

Yes, people are complicated.  They can be more than one thing. More than one thing can be true.  But if I have to make a call on whether someone goes in the "decent" box or not, openly racist (as opposed to the racial biases that nearly all of us subconsciously have) disqualifies one from the label of decency if we aren't allowing room for nuance. I wouldn't go out of my way to always call them "not-decent" based on that alone, but I certainly wouldn't use "decent" as a descriptor, either.

Yeah, if someone isn't decent with people because of their race, but super awesome with their own race...uh, yeah, they're not a decent person.

Most people who are total monsters to some seem like eminently decent people to many others.

Agreed. But in the case of my neighbor, I've seen him interacting with people for whom he harbors prejudice. To their face, he's polite. It is ideal? Nope. But it's a lot better than someone who screams obscenities at the only black family on the block (also have that neighbor). I can't make the world perfect. I can, and I do, point out when something that is said isn't accurate or kind or fair or whatever. And if someone acted on the racist thoughts that's much worse than just saying crap.

Regardless, I will continue to be polite and friendly to my neighbor. Because anything else isn't going to help. And when he says stupid shit, I'll keep looking at him and saying "but so and so in the yellow house is black, and they don't act like that. So it's not because they're black. It's because (insert whatever other reason makes sense, most of the time the people he's complaining about are pretty shitty people, regardless of race or religion)." And for some people, it'll help.

Of course please remember that where I live is heavily red and lots of Trump supporters. I have a front row seat to how complicated it is. Because when you pass judgement that someone is a bad person because of one thing, also remember you're a bad person because of one thing. People are complicated. The world isn't black and white. And good done in the name of evil is still good, just as evil done in the name of good is still evil.

[GuitarStv]

Won't you please join with me to declare once again that all people are created equal and come together to celebrate what we share in common rather than highlight the differences that tend to divide us?

This is a really weird statement to make.

All people are certainly not created equally.  Some are born with physical deformities, some with mental handicaps (or gifts).  There are taller and shorter people.  There are differences in bone density.  Some are born heterosexual, some homosexual, some bisexual.  Some are born with a vagina, some with a penis, and some with both.  People are born with different skin colours and facial structures.  People are born with different levels of wealth - which then impacts how they grow and develop.  The idea that all people are created equally is patently false and a really odd one to argue for.

You even acknowledge that the first (equality) part of your statement is false in the second.  How does one highlight differences that divide us if all people are born equally?

I don't agree with the left's position on this, but I certainly respect everyone's ability to think for themselves even if I disagree with the conclusions drawn. We all presumably want equality for all, but each feel that there are core problems with the morality of each others positions and/or the effectiveness of proposed solutions, right?  I don't feel this makes a person with a different opinion stupid, obstinate, or worthy of being personally insulted - we just don't see things the same way.  This is a critical time in history to come together and respect each others views before things (in the worst case) go beyond the possibility of civil discourse.

Given that above you have already acknowledged that people are not born equal, I'm not sure that "equality for all" is a desirable goal.  But let's examine that further.

If someone is born with a serious mental handicap and cannot reason beyond a typical three year old, should they be treated equal in every way to someone who is of average intelligence?  If yes, then can you explain your reasoning why?

[joleran]

Won't you please join with me to declare once again that all people are created equal and come together to celebrate what we share in common rather than highlight the differences that tend to divide us?

This is a really weird statement to make.

All people are certainly not created equally.  Some are born with physical deformities, some with mental handicaps (or gifts).  There are taller and shorter people.  There are differences in bone density.  Some are born heterosexual, some homosexual, some bisexual.  Some are born with a vagina, some with a penis, and some with both.  People are born with different skin colours and facial structures.  People are born with different levels of wealth - which then impacts how they grow and develop.  The idea that all people are created equally is patently false and a really odd one to argue for.

You even acknowledge that the first (equality) part of your statement is false in the second.  How does one highlight differences that divide us if all people are born equally?

It's from the USA's declaration of independence and is meant to be a statement on principle rather than literal fact.  Of course differences exist, but the principle implies that rather than highlight these differences we should attempt to treat everyone the same.  This is an imperfect duty, but nevertheless a categorical imperative consistent with Kant's intent of universal law.

I don't agree with the left's position on this, but I certainly respect everyone's ability to think for themselves even if I disagree with the conclusions drawn. We all presumably want equality for all, but each feel that there are core problems with the morality of each others positions and/or the effectiveness of proposed solutions, right?  I don't feel this makes a person with a different opinion stupid, obstinate, or worthy of being personally insulted - we just don't see things the same way.  This is a critical time in history to come together and respect each others views before things (in the worst case) go beyond the possibility of civil discourse.

Given that above you have already acknowledged that people are not born equal, I'm not sure that "equality for all" is a desirable goal.  But let's examine that further.

If someone is born with a serious mental handicap and cannot reason beyond a typical three year old, should they be treated equal in every way to someone who is of average intelligence?  If yes, then can you explain your reasoning why?

It is very difficult to reason at the extreme ends of humanity.  Someone so incapacitated can't reasonably be treated the same way as even someone of remarkably lower than average intellect - their disability is profound.  I would argue that it is a sign of humanity, kindness, and even a duty to attempt to do so though.  It is far better to give each individual person the benefit of the doubt and only accommodate them when there is no longer any doubt than to presume or anticipate profound deficits of ability.

[GuitarStv]

Won't you please join with me to declare once again that all people are created equal and come together to celebrate what we share in common rather than highlight the differences that tend to divide us?

This is a really weird statement to make.

All people are certainly not created equally.  Some are born with physical deformities, some with mental handicaps (or gifts).  There are taller and shorter people.  There are differences in bone density.  Some are born heterosexual, some homosexual, some bisexual.  Some are born with a vagina, some with a penis, and some with both.  People are born with different skin colours and facial structures.  People are born with different levels of wealth - which then impacts how they grow and develop.  The idea that all people are created equally is patently false and a really odd one to argue for.

You even acknowledge that the first (equality) part of your statement is false in the second.  How does one highlight differences that divide us if all people are born equally?

It's from the USA's declaration of independence and is meant to be a statement on principle rather than literal fact.  Of course differences exist, but the principle implies that rather than highlight these differences we should attempt to treat everyone the same.  This is an imperfect duty, but nevertheless a categorical imperative consistent with Kant's intent of universal law.

Language is important because without using it correctly we don't convey our ideas properly to one another.  I think we can do a little better than rehashing the flowery quarter millennia old religiously tinged language of those who were perfectly fine owning slaves, considering women property, and persecuting gay people.  (All while arguing that they should treat people 'equal'.)  Attempting to treat different people the same way is patently foolish.

I think that a more reasonable argument might be made for providing the same opportunities for everyone.  Is that what you had in mind?

I don't agree with the left's position on this, but I certainly respect everyone's ability to think for themselves even if I disagree with the conclusions drawn. We all presumably want equality for all, but each feel that there are core problems with the morality of each others positions and/or the effectiveness of proposed solutions, right?  I don't feel this makes a person with a different opinion stupid, obstinate, or worthy of being personally insulted - we just don't see things the same way.  This is a critical time in history to come together and respect each others views before things (in the worst case) go beyond the possibility of civil discourse.

Given that above you have already acknowledged that people are not born equal, I'm not sure that "equality for all" is a desirable goal.  But let's examine that further.

If someone is born with a serious mental handicap and cannot reason beyond a typical three year old, should they be treated equal in every way to someone who is of average intelligence?  If yes, then can you explain your reasoning why?

It is very difficult to reason at the extreme ends of humanity.  Someone so incapacitated can't reasonably be treated the same way as even someone of remarkably lower than average intellect - their disability is profound.  I would argue that it is a sign of humanity, kindness, and even a duty to attempt to do so though.  It is far better to give each individual person the benefit of the doubt and only accommodate them when there is no longer any doubt than to presume or anticipate profound deficits of ability.

Treating a man with the intellect of a three year old as though there was nothing wrong with him is denying reality.  Attempting to do so is quite liable to get the man killed.  Take crossing a busy street, being alone in a bathroom with medication/cleaning products, shaving with a straight razor . . . or any of a myriad of other situations.  It would be wildly irresponsible to do what you've suggested.

Anticipating problems is vital to how a good society works.  Making all new buildings wheelchair accessible, or having handicapped parking accommodates for disabilities before the disabled person runs into a problem for example.  Then it's up to the disabled person if he or she wants to use those accommodations - but the accommodations are there if they do need them.  I would argue that it is a sign of humanity, kindness, and even a duty to attempt to anticipate this problem in advance, rather than waiting until an untenable situation is first created for someone.

[joleran]

Language is important because without using it correctly we don't convey our ideas properly to one another.  I think we can do a little better than rehashing the flowery quarter millennia old religiously tinged language of those who were perfectly fine owning slaves, considering women property, and persecuting gay people.  (All while arguing that they should treat people 'equal'.)  Attempting to treat different people the same way is patently foolish.

I think that a more reasonable argument might be made for providing the same opportunities for everyone.  Is that what you had in mind?

What criteria do you have in mind for determining how to treat people differently?

On the subject of providing exactly equal opportunities, I would say it is an interesting idea but falls down when considering a parents desire to have a better life for their children.  Sacrifices and hard work should be acknowledged. If there is no point in attempting to aid the next generation because everyone is equal in outcome no matter their ability, culture, or upbringing, society falls apart.

This is not contending with the idea that we should treat people equally though!  Some people will be more successful than others, from luck or skill.  This does not make them better people or deserving of different treatment.

Treating a man with the intellect of a three year old as though there was nothing wrong with him is denying reality.  Attempting to do so is quite liable to get the man killed.  Take crossing a busy street, being alone in a bathroom with medication/cleaning products, shaving with a straight razor . . . or any of a myriad of other situations.  It would be wildly irresponsible to do what you've suggested.

Anticipating problems is vital to how a good society works.  Making all new buildings wheelchair accessible, or having handicapped parking accommodates for disabilities before the disabled person runs into a problem for example.  Then it's up to the disabled person if he or she wants to use those accommodations - but the accommodations are there if they do need them.  I would argue that it is a sign of humanity, kindness, and even a duty to attempt to anticipate this problem in advance, rather than waiting until an untenable situation is first created for someone.

You are entirely correct on the hypothetical issue involving an adult with a 3 year old mental ability, but only if it is known in advance that such a person has those limitations.  It is however ridiculous to assume every stranger you meet should be treated as though they are essentially helpless just in case they are. 

Where do we draw the line at providing reasonable accommodations?  How do we enact that in reality?  You provide an entirely good example of a marginalized population receiving reasonable accommodation.  Their disability is obvious and we have a moral duty to accommodate it.  How and where do you want to expand this idea of providing societal support to others?

[joleran]

I would offer an apology to you - I conflated equal opportunity and equal outcome.  That is clearly not what you said.  I stand by my words but misrepresented what you said.

[GuitarStv]

Language is important because without using it correctly we don't convey our ideas properly to one another.  I think we can do a little better than rehashing the flowery quarter millennia old religiously tinged language of those who were perfectly fine owning slaves, considering women property, and persecuting gay people.  (All while arguing that they should treat people 'equal'.)  Attempting to treat different people the same way is patently foolish.

I think that a more reasonable argument might be made for providing the same opportunities for everyone.  Is that what you had in mind?

What criteria do you have in mind for determining how to treat people differently?

I guess it would depend upon relevant criteria.  I wouldn't gesture to something if the man in front of me is blind for example.  It would be stupid to treat all people the same way.

On the subject of providing exactly equal opportunities, I would say it is an interesting idea but falls down when considering a parents desire to have a better life for their children.  Sacrifices and hard work should be acknowledged. If there is no point in attempting to aid the next generation because everyone is equal in outcome no matter their ability, culture, or upbringing, society falls apart.

I'm glad you brought this point up.  It's a very important one.

All parents desire to have a better life for their children.  The wealth that a parent accumulates can be passed to children so that these children receive an unearned step up in life over others.  It makes for a less equal playing field and benefits some in this new generation.

The inverse is also true.

In the US, white slave owners became rich because they exploited black slaves.  This went on for generations.  After they were forced to give up slave ownership white former slave owners continued to monopolize generations of unequal advantage that they leveraged into power to continue to oppress their former slaves.  This also went on for generations (and still - in various measurable forms - goes on today).  Today, many of the decedents of those black slaves are disadvantaged by multiple lifetimes of lost opportunity.

Knowing that a very large percentage of black people in the US start out with generations of unearned disadvantage, and knowing that a very large percentage of white people in the US start out with unearned generations of advantage . . . it seems pretty unfair to argue that the best course forward is to treat both the exactly the same way.

Treating people with unequal opportunity in the same way will result in the same thing on average - those who start with less end up with less in the end.

This is not contending with the idea that we should treat people equally though!  Some people will be more successful than others, from luck or skill.  This does not make them better people or deserving of different treatment.

Success in life certainly doesn't make you a better or worse person than another (although how you define success is a whole other conversation).  A well-functioning capitalist system works best when it differentiates people - treating them differently based upon their skill.  Communist countries have attempted to implement your 'treat everyone equally' philosophy and it hasn't treated them well.  Proponents of communism would argue that they just didn't treat people equally enough . . . but I'd argue that doing so is fundamentally incompatible with being human.  Treating everyone equally is fighting nature - which always differentiates.

Treating a man with the intellect of a three year old as though there was nothing wrong with him is denying reality.  Attempting to do so is quite liable to get the man killed.  Take crossing a busy street, being alone in a bathroom with medication/cleaning products, shaving with a straight razor . . . or any of a myriad of other situations.  It would be wildly irresponsible to do what you've suggested.

Anticipating problems is vital to how a good society works.  Making all new buildings wheelchair accessible, or having handicapped parking accommodates for disabilities before the disabled person runs into a problem for example.  Then it's up to the disabled person if he or she wants to use those accommodations - but the accommodations are there if they do need them.  I would argue that it is a sign of humanity, kindness, and even a duty to attempt to anticipate this problem in advance, rather than waiting until an untenable situation is first created for someone.

You are entirely correct on the hypothetical issue involving an adult with a 3 year old mental ability, but only if it is known in advance that such a person has those limitations.  It is however ridiculous to assume every stranger you meet should be treated as though they are essentially helpless just in case they are. 

Where do we draw the line at providing reasonable accommodations?  How do we enact that in reality?  You provide an entirely good example of a marginalized population receiving reasonable accommodation.  Their disability is obvious and we have a moral duty to accommodate it.  How and where do you want to expand this idea of providing societal support to others?

It's difficult and situationally dependent, and I certainly don't have all the answers.  If you have a particular instance in mind that you want to discuss then we can argue it out.  But it starts with rejecting the idea that everyone should be treated the same way.  Treating everyone the same way is a fundamentally unfair way to approach things.

[GuitarStv]

I would offer an apology to you - I conflated equal opportunity and equal outcome.  That is clearly not what you said.  I stand by my words but misrepresented what you said.

No need to apologize.  Opportunity (on average) leads to outcome.  The two are strongly linked.

[talltexan]

We can debate whether these differences are worth of consideration.

But--as it deals with governance--the promise of The Constitution should be providing equal access to governance to all people. It didn't actually do that when it was written, and it's closer to that today (but probably still doesn't fully keep that promise)

[joleran]

What criteria do you have in mind for determining how to treat people differently?

I guess it would depend upon relevant criteria.  I wouldn't gesture to something if the man in front of me is blind for example.  It would be stupid to treat all people the same way.

We do seem to disagree on the methodology, if not the reality of treating people differently.  I argue for a "presumption of ability" such that each individual is considered to be maximally competent unless proven otherwise.  Even for an obviously blind man - is it more moral to assume their disability needs to be accommodated than to hope it does not limit them and they may be able to discern your arm movement despite their apparent limitations?  I know this sounds ridiculous in this example but the intent should be clear.

On the subject of providing exactly equal opportunities, I would say it is an interesting idea but falls down when considering a parents desire to have a better life for their children.  Sacrifices and hard work should be acknowledged. If there is no point in attempting to aid the next generation because everyone is equal in outcome no matter their ability, culture, or upbringing, society falls apart.

I'm glad you brought this point up.  It's a very important one.

All parents desire to have a better life for their children.  The wealth that a parent accumulates can be passed to children so that these children receive an unearned step up in life over others.  It makes for a less equal playing field and benefits some in this new generation.

The inverse is also true.

In the US, white slave owners became rich because they exploited black slaves.  This went on for generations.  After they were forced to give up slave ownership white former slave owners continued to monopolize generations of unequal advantage that they leveraged into power to continue to oppress their former slaves.  This also went on for generations (and still - in various measurable forms - goes on today).  Today, many of the decedents of those black slaves are disadvantaged by multiple lifetimes of lost opportunity.

Knowing that a very large percentage of black people in the US start out with generations of unearned disadvantage, and knowing that a very large percentage of white people in the US start out with unearned generations of advantage . . . it seems pretty unfair to argue that the best course forward is to treat both the exactly the same way.

Treating people with unequal opportunity in the same way will result in the same thing on average - those who start with less end up with less in the end.

Nigerian Americans are one of the most successful ethnic minorities in the US, far exceeding White Americans' financial success on average.  It is therefore very difficult to see an argument that their race somehow holds them back.  At the same time, multi-generational Black Americans descended from slaves have horrific outcomes on average.  I argue it is a question of culture, which has been largely transformed from the goals of equality and self-determination espoused in the US civil rights movement to the brutal acceptance of Democrat policies deciding that Black Americans need to be treated differently because they are functionally inferior due to societal oppression.

You are however clearly right that multi-generational discrimination has held back the Black population as a whole in exactly the manner you describe.  I ask that this stops and we treat everyone as equals and not treat people of any race differently because of past oppression, thereby perpetuating a victim mentality and sense of entitlement as opposed to a sense of purpose and ability.  Treating people differently due to their race or other uncontrollable characteristics hurts those it is intended to help. Outcomes will not change overnight, but they will change as there is no real argument for essential racial inferiority. Attempting to tilt the scales to more quickly produce the desired outcomes will not see success because it undermines the very characteristics that tend to produce success.

This is not contending with the idea that we should treat people equally though!  Some people will be more successful than others, from luck or skill.  This does not make them better people or deserving of different treatment.

Success in life certainly doesn't make you a better or worse person than another (although how you define success is a whole other conversation).  A well-functioning capitalist system works best when it differentiates people - treating them differently based upon their skill.  Communist countries have attempted to implement your 'treat everyone equally' philosophy and it hasn't treated them well.  Proponents of communism would argue that they just didn't treat people equally enough . . . but I'd argue that doing so is fundamentally incompatible with being human.  Treating everyone equally is fighting nature - which always differentiates.

Communist countries certainly don't treat people equally unless you think "from each according to their ability and to each according to their need" represents equality.  My perspective is not about economic equality irrespective of ability - this clearly does not work.  It is instead to give compassion, understanding, and respect for all humans and to not look down on individuals or discriminate based on their demographics or perspectives.  Equality in this sense simply means that no human is set above any other on inherent moral or value-based grounds regardless of their societal status.

It is, as you say, against human nature to do so.  It doesn't feel good to treat everyone as equals.  It feels great to discriminate and fight.