Author Topic: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?  (Read 64583 times)

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #450 on: March 06, 2019, 09:20:55 AM »
Fox news.  It openly spouts racist, sexist, and homophobic propaganda on a regular basis.  They like the Republican party, which openly supports and condones racism, homophobia, and sexism.

Your premise seems utterly ridiculous to me. 

I haven't been participating on this thread, but I have been reading. And I have been trying to resist commenting. But I do want to point one thing out.

ChewMeUp, given this statement by you, I think it's very likely that you don't actually watch Fox News at all (which I find unlikely) or you are perfectly fine with dog whistle -- and sometimes not dog-whistle -- racism, sexism, and homophobia.

Note that I am not calling you a racist/sexist/homophobe. Just someone who willfully ignores racism/sexism/homophobia.

This is a good starting point.  Let's be specific.  What do you consider a dog whistle racism that has been on Fox News recently?  I'm curious what I'm being accused of here or what I'm willfully ignoring.  I'm certainly not racist, so I'm really intrigued about what sort of racism I'm tolerating or supporting.  It's a good place to start, and maybe we can help find a better understanding of each other.

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #451 on: March 06, 2019, 09:22:34 AM »
Speaking of: inclusivity. If that is your goal perhaps you should enforce your intolerance policy uniformly. Because right now you basically have a large, flashing, neon sign above the Off-Topics screaming that nobody who is a conservative or even remotely supports the President is welcome here. So that statement of inclusivity is disingenuous at best. Let's drop the pretense.

With that said, it's your dog and pony show. If you want to exclude people, than that's your prerogative. Just stop wth the bullshit though.

I hold pretty conservative views, when compared to many of my fellow American posters here. Look at my post count, and see that I'm quite welcome. My strategy is avoid being a dick. Seems to work.

I wasn't a dick until I was threatened unfairly. FrugalTogue displayed an abuse of power. It's literally as simple as that. Either you agree with his general premises or he will ban you. Crystal clear. I was completely respectful ( and yes I challenged him, but that does not equate to trolling ) in the conversation leading up to his threats.

The title of this thread asks why does it have to be this way? Because differing opinions (within respectful parameters) get shut down in these forums. Once again, where did Steveo cross the line? What warranted him being labeled a troll and the threat of banishment? Nobody has answered this question.

People have differing opinions for valid reasons many times. If you create an echo chamber you will never bridge this divide.

FrugalToque

  • Global Moderator
  • Pencil Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 649
  • Location: Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #452 on: March 06, 2019, 09:25:48 AM »
Fox news.  It openly spouts racist, sexist, and homophobic propaganda on a regular basis.  They like the Republican party, which openly supports and condones racism, homophobia, and sexism.

Your premise seems utterly ridiculous to me.  We'll just have to disagree at this point.  I can't start with some sort of assumption that everyone on Fox News and in the Republican party is an open homophobe, sexist and racist.

That is specifically what GuitarStv did not say.  Why are you doing that?

The network and major members of the party spout terrible views.  Yet people associated with the network and the party don't like being associated with those terrible views.

Yet somehow, you got to, "You're accusing every Fox News commentator and every Republican of being openly bigoted."

How do you think we can't see you doing this?

Toque.

I'm sorry.  I don't know what you are accusing me of.  I really don't.  GuitarStv just said Fox News OPENLY spouts racist, sexist, and homophobic propaganda ON A REGULAR BASIS.  And the Republican Party openly supports and condones racism, homophobia, and sexism.

If that's not saying Fox News (and those associated with it) and the Republican Party (ie, Republicans) are not bigoted/racist/sexist, etc.  Then I apologize, I don't understand the logic or what GuitarStv is trying to say.  To me it's absolutely implying Republicans and Fox News is racist/sexist/homophobic.  If I'm misreading it, I'm open to an explanation.

The difference is between these sentences:
"Fox News openly regularly spouts ..."
"Everyone on Fox News is ..."

"The party openly supports and condones ..."
"Everyone in the party is ..."

Toque.

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #453 on: March 06, 2019, 09:31:16 AM »
The interesting thing to me about this is -- why are conservatives so focused on whether individual people are racist / sexist / homophobic / whatever?

Why is it so much more important for them to not be thought of as racists / sexists / homophobes than it is for others to not be subjected to racism / sexism / homophobia?

In the vast majority of cases, it doesn't matter whether an individual is "a racist / sexist," what matters is the systems and patterns in place, and the way that people speak and behave and vote within those systems.

Put another way, if someone is a horrible virulent racist in their heart of hearts, but I can't tell by the way they speak / behave / vote, then I don't care. It's completely irrelevant what someone *is,* what is important is what they *do.*

And if you still support the Donald at this point in history ... if you are denying the existence of societal systems that are changing but have been in place for literally thousands of years and are still running today ... if you are getting defensive about new ideas that you don't understand, instead of trying to understand them ... then your actions are saying everything that needs to be said about who you are and what you stand for, and it ain't equality or democracy.

The fragility on display here is really something else.

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #454 on: March 06, 2019, 09:34:57 AM »
Speaking of: inclusivity. If that is your goal perhaps you should enforce your intolerance policy uniformly. Because right now you basically have a large, flashing, neon sign above the Off-Topics screaming that nobody who is a conservative or even remotely supports the President is welcome here. So that statement of inclusivity is disingenuous at best. Let's drop the pretense.

With that said, it's your dog and pony show. If you want to exclude people, than that's your prerogative. Just stop wth the bullshit though.

I hold pretty conservative views, when compared to many of my fellow American posters here. Look at my post count, and see that I'm quite welcome. My strategy is avoid being a dick. Seems to work.

I wasn't a dick until I was threatened unfairly. FrugalTogue displayed an abuse of power. It's literally as simple as that. Either you agree with his general premises or he will ban you. Crystal clear. I was completely respectful ( and yes I challenged him, but that does not equate to trolling ) in the conversation leading up to his threats.

The title of this thread asks why does it have to be this way? Because differing opinions (within respectful parameters) get shut down in these forums. Once again, where did Steveo cross the line? What warranted him being labeled a troll and the threat of banishment? Nobody has answered this question.

People have differing opinions for valid reasons many times. If you create an echo chamber you will never bridge this divide.

Since he refuses to explain what he is referring to when he uses the word patriarchy, I'm pretty sure he is consistently and purposefully arguing against a straw man even after multiple people point it out to him.  To me, that's pretty clearly trolling.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5501
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #455 on: March 06, 2019, 09:36:41 AM »
Fox news.  It openly spouts racist, sexist, and homophobic propaganda on a regular basis.  They like the Republican party, which openly supports and condones racism, homophobia, and sexism.

Your premise seems utterly ridiculous to me. 

I haven't been participating on this thread, but I have been reading. And I have been trying to resist commenting. But I do want to point one thing out.

ChewMeUp, given this statement by you, I think it's very likely that you don't actually watch Fox News at all (which I find unlikely) or you are perfectly fine with dog whistle -- and sometimes not dog-whistle -- racism, sexism, and homophobia.

Note that I am not calling you a racist/sexist/homophobe. Just someone who willfully ignores racism/sexism/homophobia.

This is a good starting point.  Let's be specific.  What do you consider a dog whistle racism that has been on Fox News recently?  I'm curious what I'm being accused of here or what I'm willfully ignoring.  I'm certainly not racist, so I'm really intrigued about what sort of racism I'm tolerating or supporting.  It's a good place to start, and maybe we can help find a better understanding of each other.

Here's the thing.

"Dog whistle racism" exists specifically so that people can hear it, but deny that it's there.

Why am I not specifically posting instances? Because the whole way that kind of stuff is constructed is so that people who want to willfully ignore racism can have plausible deniability.

You can google "Dog whistle racism Fox" and find a ton of articles about it.

I'm not passing the buck here. I strongly suggest that you do that. And think hard about the things that you read. By yourself, when you're not in an argument with strangers on the internet that you are determined to win. When you're actually willing to read and think about what you've read.

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2532
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #456 on: March 06, 2019, 09:39:00 AM »
Fox news.  It openly spouts racist, sexist, and homophobic propaganda on a regular basis.  They like the Republican party, which openly supports and condones racism, homophobia, and sexism.

Your premise seems utterly ridiculous to me.  We'll just have to disagree at this point.  I can't start with some sort of assumption that everyone on Fox News and in the Republican party is an open homophobe, sexist and racist.

That is specifically what GuitarStv did not say.  Why are you doing that?

The network and major members of the party spout terrible views.  Yet people associated with the network and the party don't like being associated with those terrible views.

Yet somehow, you got to, "You're accusing every Fox News commentator and every Republican of being openly bigoted."

How do you think we can't see you doing this?

Toque.

I'm sorry.  I don't know what you are accusing me of.  I really don't.  GuitarStv just said Fox News OPENLY spouts racist, sexist, and homophobic propaganda ON A REGULAR BASIS.  And the Republican Party openly supports and condones racism, homophobia, and sexism.

If that's not saying Fox News (and those associated with it) and the Republican Party (ie, Republicans) are not bigoted/racist/sexist, etc.  Then I apologize, I don't understand the logic or what GuitarStv is trying to say.  To me it's absolutely implying Republicans and Fox News is racist/sexist/homophobic.  If I'm misreading it, I'm open to an explanation.

It's simple. To openly support means just that. To condone means to allow to continue, often times with reluctance. Condone may not necessarily mean they openly support it, they just simple might "look the other way." You have a President, chosen predominantly by the Republican party, who is openly and unequivocally racist. To this day some 90% of Republicans still approve and support Trump. Some racist openly support him. Others, who choose to support him also choose to condone racism. They may not openly support racism, they just don't give a shit that Trump is racist.

Think of it this way. If you saw someone being raped would you look the other way allowing it to continue all the while claiming you don't support rape, or would you step in and do something about it? Looking the other way sure isn't going to be regarded too highly, especially by the victims.

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #457 on: March 06, 2019, 09:41:15 AM »
Fox news.  It openly spouts racist, sexist, and homophobic propaganda on a regular basis.  They like the Republican party, which openly supports and condones racism, homophobia, and sexism.

Your premise seems utterly ridiculous to me.  We'll just have to disagree at this point.  I can't start with some sort of assumption that everyone on Fox News and in the Republican party is an open homophobe, sexist and racist.

That is specifically what GuitarStv did not say.  Why are you doing that?

The network and major members of the party spout terrible views.  Yet people associated with the network and the party don't like being associated with those terrible views.

Yet somehow, you got to, "You're accusing every Fox News commentator and every Republican of being openly bigoted."

How do you think we can't see you doing this?

Toque.

I'm sorry.  I don't know what you are accusing me of.  I really don't.  GuitarStv just said Fox News OPENLY spouts racist, sexist, and homophobic propaganda ON A REGULAR BASIS.  And the Republican Party openly supports and condones racism, homophobia, and sexism.

If that's not saying Fox News (and those associated with it) and the Republican Party (ie, Republicans) are not bigoted/racist/sexist, etc.  Then I apologize, I don't understand the logic or what GuitarStv is trying to say.  To me it's absolutely implying Republicans and Fox News is racist/sexist/homophobic.  If I'm misreading it, I'm open to an explanation.

The difference is between these sentences:
"Fox News openly regularly spouts ..."
"Everyone on Fox News is ..."

"The party openly supports and condones ..."
"Everyone in the party is ..."

Toque.

I see your point.  I should have written that differently.  I can't start with the premise that Fox News and the Republican party are openly racist, homophobic, and sexist.  I think that's an unfair characterization and inaccurate.  Just because there ARE racist/sexist/homophobic people that happen to be Republican, that doesn't get to define the party.  It's like saying Democrats support the Klan because Byrd was a Senator and wasn't ostracized by the party.  Right wingers used that argument all the time.  I hated it.  I don't view Democrats that way. And if it hasn't been clear enough, I fucking hate political parties.  I'm NOT a registered Republican or anything else.

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #458 on: March 06, 2019, 09:50:23 AM »
Fox news.  It openly spouts racist, sexist, and homophobic propaganda on a regular basis.  They like the Republican party, which openly supports and condones racism, homophobia, and sexism.

Your premise seems utterly ridiculous to me. 

I haven't been participating on this thread, but I have been reading. And I have been trying to resist commenting. But I do want to point one thing out.

ChewMeUp, given this statement by you, I think it's very likely that you don't actually watch Fox News at all (which I find unlikely) or you are perfectly fine with dog whistle -- and sometimes not dog-whistle -- racism, sexism, and homophobia.

Note that I am not calling you a racist/sexist/homophobe. Just someone who willfully ignores racism/sexism/homophobia.

This is a good starting point.  Let's be specific.  What do you consider a dog whistle racism that has been on Fox News recently?  I'm curious what I'm being accused of here or what I'm willfully ignoring.  I'm certainly not racist, so I'm really intrigued about what sort of racism I'm tolerating or supporting.  It's a good place to start, and maybe we can help find a better understanding of each other.

Here's the thing.

"Dog whistle racism" exists specifically so that people can hear it, but deny that it's there.

Why am I not specifically posting instances? Because the whole way that kind of stuff is constructed is so that people who want to willfully ignore racism can have plausible deniability.

You can google "Dog whistle racism Fox" and find a ton of articles about it.

I'm not passing the buck here. I strongly suggest that you do that. And think hard about the things that you read. By yourself, when you're not in an argument with strangers on the internet that you are determined to win. When you're actually willing to read and think about what you've read.

I have NO determination to win.  I don't operate that way.  I'm an open book.  I don't think I've even argued that much other than we should stop talking in extremes and labeling people.  I haven't seen a convincing argument otherwise that would make me change my mind and start viewing masses of human beings as horrible people.

When I Google that, one story that comes up is about a black Democratic Rep accusing the Democrat party leadership of dog whistle racism along with some Trump examples. Personally, I don't view this dog whistle racism the way you may.  It leaves WAY too much up to interpretation and bias.  It's all about guessing what is in the hearts of the people saying things.  When you go down that road, you can essentially accuse anyone of anything.  If it was clearly racism, it wouldn't be a dog whistle...  By definition.  Any actual examples of racism?  I'm open to it and will fully admit it if you can provide something.  This started from a comment that Republicans and Fox are saying openly racist things ON A REGULAR BASIS, so this shouldn't be hard.  Maybe I am missing it - show me, I'll admit it if so.

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #459 on: March 06, 2019, 09:52:10 AM »
Fox news.  It openly spouts racist, sexist, and homophobic propaganda on a regular basis.  They like the Republican party, which openly supports and condones racism, homophobia, and sexism.

Your premise seems utterly ridiculous to me.  We'll just have to disagree at this point.  I can't start with some sort of assumption that everyone on Fox News and in the Republican party is an open homophobe, sexist and racist.

That is specifically what GuitarStv did not say.  Why are you doing that?

The network and major members of the party spout terrible views.  Yet people associated with the network and the party don't like being associated with those terrible views.

Yet somehow, you got to, "You're accusing every Fox News commentator and every Republican of being openly bigoted."

How do you think we can't see you doing this?

Toque.

I'm sorry.  I don't know what you are accusing me of.  I really don't.  GuitarStv just said Fox News OPENLY spouts racist, sexist, and homophobic propaganda ON A REGULAR BASIS.  And the Republican Party openly supports and condones racism, homophobia, and sexism.

If that's not saying Fox News (and those associated with it) and the Republican Party (ie, Republicans) are not bigoted/racist/sexist, etc.  Then I apologize, I don't understand the logic or what GuitarStv is trying to say.  To me it's absolutely implying Republicans and Fox News is racist/sexist/homophobic.  If I'm misreading it, I'm open to an explanation.

It's simple. To openly support means just that. To condone means to allow to continue, often times with reluctance. Condone may not necessarily mean they openly support it, they just simple might "look the other way." You have a President, chosen predominantly by the Republican party, who is openly and unequivocally racist. To this day some 90% of Republicans still approve and support Trump. Some racist openly support him. Others, who choose to support him also choose to condone racism. They may not openly support racism, they just don't give a shit that Trump is racist.

Think of it this way. If you saw someone being raped would you look the other way allowing it to continue all the while claiming you don't support rape, or would you step in and do something about it? Looking the other way sure isn't going to be regarded too highly, especially by the victims.

I don't buy in to the premise that Trump is openly racist.  I know, shocking.... but would you mind providing some examples on what you consider openly racist?  We can tackle one or two and again, I'm open to listening to your interpretation.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3987
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #460 on: March 06, 2019, 10:07:12 AM »
Chewmeup, I'm not going to look up all the examples for you, but they may be in the Trump thread. I don't know if you are aware that Donald Trump's father was associated with the Klan. His businesses have been sued and successfully won discriminatory practices in who he sells and rents his properties to (hint: not African Americans).
When he and Ivana would tour his properties, black employees were literally told to hide from view.
He was one of the loudest voices promoting the fringe conspiracy theory that Obama was not born in the US (is African) and hence an illegitimate president. He made many other remarks insinuating that Obama was not worthy to be President.
He also took out a full page ad advocating the death sentence for the Central park five, African American teens who were accused and later cleared of a brutal rape that occurred in Central Park. Even after they were cleared he maintained they were guilty and should be punished. 
He has referred to people of other races as animals, and African countries as "shitholes"

http://fortune.com/2016/06/07/donald-trump-racism-quotes/
« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 10:14:08 AM by partgypsy »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16041
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #461 on: March 06, 2019, 10:10:58 AM »
Fox news.  It openly spouts racist, sexist, and homophobic propaganda on a regular basis.  They like the Republican party, which openly supports and condones racism, homophobia, and sexism.

Your premise seems utterly ridiculous to me.  We'll just have to disagree at this point.  I can't start with some sort of assumption that everyone on Fox News and in the Republican party is an open homophobe, sexist and racist.

That is specifically what GuitarStv did not say.  Why are you doing that?

The network and major members of the party spout terrible views.  Yet people associated with the network and the party don't like being associated with those terrible views.

Yet somehow, you got to, "You're accusing every Fox News commentator and every Republican of being openly bigoted."

How do you think we can't see you doing this?

Toque.

I'm sorry.  I don't know what you are accusing me of.  I really don't.  GuitarStv just said Fox News OPENLY spouts racist, sexist, and homophobic propaganda ON A REGULAR BASIS.  And the Republican Party openly supports and condones racism, homophobia, and sexism.

If that's not saying Fox News (and those associated with it) and the Republican Party (ie, Republicans) are not bigoted/racist/sexist, etc.  Then I apologize, I don't understand the logic or what GuitarStv is trying to say.  To me it's absolutely implying Republicans and Fox News is racist/sexist/homophobic.  If I'm misreading it, I'm open to an explanation.

It's simple. To openly support means just that. To condone means to allow to continue, often times with reluctance. Condone may not necessarily mean they openly support it, they just simple might "look the other way." You have a President, chosen predominantly by the Republican party, who is openly and unequivocally racist. To this day some 90% of Republicans still approve and support Trump. Some racist openly support him. Others, who choose to support him also choose to condone racism. They may not openly support racism, they just don't give a shit that Trump is racist.

Think of it this way. If you saw someone being raped would you look the other way allowing it to continue all the while claiming you don't support rape, or would you step in and do something about it? Looking the other way sure isn't going to be regarded too highly, especially by the victims.

I don't buy in to the premise that Trump is openly racist.  I know, shocking.... but would you mind providing some examples on what you consider openly racist?  We can tackle one or two and again, I'm open to listening to your interpretation.

Donald Trump said that an American judge could not be impartial while presiding over the Trump University case because of his Mexican heritage.  Donald Trump was very explicit that it was because of his race that the judge could not be impartial.

What do you call this comment?


Quote
TAPPER: What does this have to do with his heritage?
TRUMP: I'll tell you what it has to do. I've had ruling after ruling after ruling that's been bad rulings, OK? I've been treated very unfairly. Before him, we had another judge. If that judge was still there, this case would have been over two years ago.
Let me just tell you, I've had horrible rulings, I've been treated very unfairly by this judge. Now, this judge is of Mexican heritage. I'm building a wall, OK? I'm building a wall. I am going to do very well with the Hispanics, the Mexicans --
TAPPER: So, no Mexican judge could ever be involved in a case that involves you?
TRUMP: Well, he's a member of a society, where -- you know, very pro-Mexico, and that's fine. It's all fine, but --
TAPPER: Except that you're calling into question his heritage.
TRUMP: I think he should recuse himself.
TAPPER: Because he's Latino?
TRUMP: Then, you also say, does he know the lawyer on the other side? I mean, does he know the lawyer? You know, a lot of people say --
TAPPER: But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about --
TRUMP: That's another problem.
TAPPER: You're invoking his race, talking about whether or not he can do his job.
TRUMP: Jake, I'm building a wall. OK? I'm building a wall. I'm trying to keep business out of Mexico. Mexico's fine.
TAPPER: But he's an American.
TRUMP: He's of Mexican heritage and he's very proud of it, as I am where I come from, my parents.
TAPPER: But he's an American. You keep talking about it's a conflict of interest because of Mexico.
TRUMP: Jake, are you ready? I have a case that should have already been dismissed. I have thousands of people saying Trump University is fantastic, OK? I have a case that should have been dismissed. A judge that never, ever gives -- now, we lose the plaintiff. He lets the plaintiff of the case out.
So, why isn't he calling the case? So, we thought we won the case.
TAPPER: So, you disagree with his rulings. I totally understand that.
TRUMP: I've had lawyers come up to me and say, you are being treated so unfairly. It's unbelievable. You know the plaintiffs in the case have all said wonderful things about the school and they're suing. You know why they're suing? Because they want to get their money back.
TAPPER: I don't want to really litigate the case of Trump University.
TRUMP: You have to, because if he was giving me fair rulings, I wouldn't say that.
TAPPER: My question is --
TRUMP: Jake, if you were giving me fair rulings, I wouldn't be talking to you this way. He's given me horrible rulings.
TAPPER: I don't care if you criticize him, that's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying, if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job.
TRUMP: I think that's why he's doing it. I think that's why he's doing it.


Let me help you a bit here:

openly: without concealment, deception, or prevarication, especially where these might be expected; frankly or honestly.
racist: a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races



Wait, maybe you want to hear it from someone else?
https://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/web-video/paul-ryan-trump-made-textbook-definition-racist-comment
(Interesting to note that Paul Ryan does the typical Republican thing here when faced with racism.  He doesn't openly condone it, but goes on to say that Trump is still better than Hilary.  Because racism isn't really seen as an important issue for the Republican party to address.)



We have full documentation of an openly made "textbook definition racist comment".  Not taken out of context, not a mis-spoken word.  This wasn't hidden from view, or difficult to find.  So why are you having trouble seeing Donald Trump as an openly racist man?


It ain't like that was a one off.

Remember when President Trump asked, (of Haiti, El Salvador, and a number of African countries), “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?”, or when he repeatedly called Elizabeth Warren "Pocahonas" . . . even after being told by several native groups that the comment was offensive (and after Warren proved that her ancestry was part native), when Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio . . . the man who was responsible for the worst pattern of racial profiling in U.S. history (according to the Department of Justice), when he said that 40,000 Nigerians would "never go back to their huts" after seeing America, when he said that of Hatians "They all have AIDS".  This list goes on, and on, and on, and on.

I'm hoping that now we can put to bed the bullshit pretense that Republicans are too ignorant of the world around them to realize that Donald Trump is openly racist.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 10:50:32 AM by GuitarStv »

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5501
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #462 on: March 06, 2019, 10:17:57 AM »
Fox news.  It openly spouts racist, sexist, and homophobic propaganda on a regular basis.  They like the Republican party, which openly supports and condones racism, homophobia, and sexism.

Your premise seems utterly ridiculous to me. 

I haven't been participating on this thread, but I have been reading. And I have been trying to resist commenting. But I do want to point one thing out.

ChewMeUp, given this statement by you, I think it's very likely that you don't actually watch Fox News at all (which I find unlikely) or you are perfectly fine with dog whistle -- and sometimes not dog-whistle -- racism, sexism, and homophobia.

Note that I am not calling you a racist/sexist/homophobe. Just someone who willfully ignores racism/sexism/homophobia.

This is a good starting point.  Let's be specific.  What do you consider a dog whistle racism that has been on Fox News recently?  I'm curious what I'm being accused of here or what I'm willfully ignoring.  I'm certainly not racist, so I'm really intrigued about what sort of racism I'm tolerating or supporting.  It's a good place to start, and maybe we can help find a better understanding of each other.

Here's the thing.

"Dog whistle racism" exists specifically so that people can hear it, but deny that it's there.

Why am I not specifically posting instances? Because the whole way that kind of stuff is constructed is so that people who want to willfully ignore racism can have plausible deniability.

You can google "Dog whistle racism Fox" and find a ton of articles about it.

I'm not passing the buck here. I strongly suggest that you do that. And think hard about the things that you read. By yourself, when you're not in an argument with strangers on the internet that you are determined to win. When you're actually willing to read and think about what you've read.

I have NO determination to win.  I don't operate that way.  I'm an open book.  I don't think I've even argued that much other than we should stop talking in extremes and labeling people.  I haven't seen a convincing argument otherwise that would make me change my mind and start viewing masses of human beings as horrible people.

When I Google that, one story that comes up is about a black Democratic Rep accusing the Democrat party leadership of dog whistle racism along with some Trump examples. Personally, I don't view this dog whistle racism the way you may.  It leaves WAY too much up to interpretation and bias.  It's all about guessing what is in the hearts of the people saying things.  When you go down that road, you can essentially accuse anyone of anything.  If it was clearly racism, it wouldn't be a dog whistle...  By definition.  Any actual examples of racism?  I'm open to it and will fully admit it if you can provide something.  This started from a comment that Republicans and Fox are saying openly racist things ON A REGULAR BASIS, so this shouldn't be hard.  Maybe I am missing it - show me, I'll admit it if so.

Here you go. I actually googled "fox dog whistle racism."

https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=fox+dog+whistle+racism&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

And yeah. See, you're doing the thing. Dog whistle racism exists so that people who want to ignore racism have plausible deniability.

Edit: Here's also a Wiki article on dog whistle politics. Just in case you are unclear on the concept. Useful for the sources especially.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics
« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 10:20:02 AM by Kris »

EvenSteven

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
  • Location: St. Louis
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #463 on: March 06, 2019, 10:43:10 AM »
Fox news.  It openly spouts racist, sexist, and homophobic propaganda on a regular basis.  They like the Republican party, which openly supports and condones racism, homophobia, and sexism.

Your premise seems utterly ridiculous to me.  We'll just have to disagree at this point.  I can't start with some sort of assumption that everyone on Fox News and in the Republican party is an open homophobe, sexist and racist.

That is specifically what GuitarStv did not say.  Why are you doing that?

The network and major members of the party spout terrible views.  Yet people associated with the network and the party don't like being associated with those terrible views.

Yet somehow, you got to, "You're accusing every Fox News commentator and every Republican of being openly bigoted."

How do you think we can't see you doing this?

Toque.

I'm sorry.  I don't know what you are accusing me of.  I really don't.  GuitarStv just said Fox News OPENLY spouts racist, sexist, and homophobic propaganda ON A REGULAR BASIS.  And the Republican Party openly supports and condones racism, homophobia, and sexism.

If that's not saying Fox News (and those associated with it) and the Republican Party (ie, Republicans) are not bigoted/racist/sexist, etc.  Then I apologize, I don't understand the logic or what GuitarStv is trying to say.  To me it's absolutely implying Republicans and Fox News is racist/sexist/homophobic.  If I'm misreading it, I'm open to an explanation.

It's simple. To openly support means just that. To condone means to allow to continue, often times with reluctance. Condone may not necessarily mean they openly support it, they just simple might "look the other way." You have a President, chosen predominantly by the Republican party, who is openly and unequivocally racist. To this day some 90% of Republicans still approve and support Trump. Some racist openly support him. Others, who choose to support him also choose to condone racism. They may not openly support racism, they just don't give a shit that Trump is racist.

Think of it this way. If you saw someone being raped would you look the other way allowing it to continue all the while claiming you don't support rape, or would you step in and do something about it? Looking the other way sure isn't going to be regarded too highly, especially by the victims.

I don't buy in to the premise that Trump is openly racist.  I know, shocking.... but would you mind providing some examples on what you consider openly racist?  We can tackle one or two and again, I'm open to listening to your interpretation.

Vox as compiled a handy list.

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

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3987
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #464 on: March 06, 2019, 10:59:50 AM »
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03/09/donald-trump-vetoed-miss-universe-contestants-for-being-too-ethnic-new-book-says/

Here's another one, of how he ran the miss universe contest. Basically even if that person was a finalist from a country, no person considered a finalist, unless he said so.
He would often veto women of color with the excuse they were too dark skinned or "ethnic" or there was too many of them. Once he turned his back on a Black contestant rehearsing her part, mimicking vomiting.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 11:37:42 AM by partgypsy »

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #465 on: March 06, 2019, 11:08:51 AM »
Folks. We can provide examples of Trump doing racist shit for decades — but it won’t have any impact.

We’ve all heard what the Donald says and we’ve seen how he behaves — if at this point the conclusion being drawn is still “I don’t see how that’s racist,” then that person’s brain is broken and they are beyond rational debate. May as well beat your head against a wall, it will be a better use of your time.

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #466 on: March 06, 2019, 11:26:23 AM »
Fox news.  It openly spouts racist, sexist, and homophobic propaganda on a regular basis.  They like the Republican party, which openly supports and condones racism, homophobia, and sexism.

Your premise seems utterly ridiculous to me.  We'll just have to disagree at this point.  I can't start with some sort of assumption that everyone on Fox News and in the Republican party is an open homophobe, sexist and racist.

That is specifically what GuitarStv did not say.  Why are you doing that?

The network and major members of the party spout terrible views.  Yet people associated with the network and the party don't like being associated with those terrible views.

Yet somehow, you got to, "You're accusing every Fox News commentator and every Republican of being openly bigoted."

How do you think we can't see you doing this?

Toque.

I'm sorry.  I don't know what you are accusing me of.  I really don't.  GuitarStv just said Fox News OPENLY spouts racist, sexist, and homophobic propaganda ON A REGULAR BASIS.  And the Republican Party openly supports and condones racism, homophobia, and sexism.

If that's not saying Fox News (and those associated with it) and the Republican Party (ie, Republicans) are not bigoted/racist/sexist, etc.  Then I apologize, I don't understand the logic or what GuitarStv is trying to say.  To me it's absolutely implying Republicans and Fox News is racist/sexist/homophobic.  If I'm misreading it, I'm open to an explanation.

It's simple. To openly support means just that. To condone means to allow to continue, often times with reluctance. Condone may not necessarily mean they openly support it, they just simple might "look the other way." You have a President, chosen predominantly by the Republican party, who is openly and unequivocally racist. To this day some 90% of Republicans still approve and support Trump. Some racist openly support him. Others, who choose to support him also choose to condone racism. They may not openly support racism, they just don't give a shit that Trump is racist.

Think of it this way. If you saw someone being raped would you look the other way allowing it to continue all the while claiming you don't support rape, or would you step in and do something about it? Looking the other way sure isn't going to be regarded too highly, especially by the victims.

I don't buy in to the premise that Trump is openly racist.  I know, shocking.... but would you mind providing some examples on what you consider openly racist?  We can tackle one or two and again, I'm open to listening to your interpretation.

Donald Trump said that an American judge could not be impartial while presiding over the Trump University case because of his Mexican heritage.  Donald Trump was very explicit that it was because of his race that the judge could not be impartial.

What do you call this comment?


This is a good one.  Because it brings up an interesting point about how we define racism.  I can 100% see where you are coming from when you call him racist. The comments were largely due to his Mexican heritage.  However, the actual definition of racism has to do with believing a race is superior over another.  When I hear "racism" - I absolutely think of "superiority over another race" - which again, is the definition. That doesn't appear to be the case at all with this.  Trump didn't say Curiel couldn't rule simply because he was Mexican and Mexicans are inferior.  Trump actually said Curiel should be proud of his heritage. If you read what you posted, Trump said a previous judge on the case was more fair and he believed he was being treated very unfairly (agree or not, it's how Trump obviously felt).  Trump believed it was fair to question the judge based on some rulings he disagreed with and the political climate at the time which was VERY much centered around Mexico.  The judge being Mexican, in Southern California, Obama appointee, and part of the La Raza Lawyers Association (which is viewed as sympathetic to immigrants crossing the border).  These are unquestionably points that a reasonable person might take in to account when determining bias.  Where is the superiority here?

I disagreed with Trump on that point.  I think judges have to be viewed as impartial until they prove otherwise.  Of course, if you read the transcript again, it's clear Trump thinks the judge isn't fair and impartial at the time of the comments.  I still thought he was out of line for making the comments about Judge Curiel and found it fairly offensive.  Certainly not presidential.  These would be arguments you might make in an appeals court if you are challenging the fairness of the ruling and questioning potential bias, but to challenge the judge right off the bat?  I didn't like that at all.  It sets a bad precedent and we can't go down that path with judges.  But racist, no.

To clarify, again, I get where you are coming from.   There are certainly prejudices that Trump seems to display.  It makes sense for you to dislike him for it.  But I don't think that is the same as being flat our racist.  We do agree on the facts.  I agree with, and understand why you would dislike Trump for comments he makes.  And your definition of racism, it fits.  But your definition is not correct.

Racism:  "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

Even the first sentence on the wiki article:  "Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another"

Calling Warren pocahontas is inappropriate, can definitely be viewed as offensive, but it's not racist.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 11:40:53 AM by ChewMeUp »

FrugalToque

  • Global Moderator
  • Pencil Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 649
  • Location: Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #467 on: March 06, 2019, 11:28:13 AM »
Folks. We can provide examples of Trump doing racist shit for decades — but it won’t have any impact.

We’ve all heard what the Donald says and we’ve seen how he behaves — if at this point the conclusion being drawn is still “I don’t see how that’s racist,” then that person’s brain is broken and they are beyond rational debate. May as well beat your head against a wall, it will be a better use of your time.

Which is, basically, what this thread was originally about.  Why do Liberals and Conservatives have to be that way?

Because we can obviously see that the leader of the Republican party is incredibly racist.  It's not hidden.  It's not subtle.  From his beauty pageants and the Central Park Five, to his anti-immigrant rhetoric and that "Mexican judge" dialogue above, it's obvious.

That means that, from where we're standing, continuing to support that party and that man means you either think his racism is irrelevant, or you're okay with it.  Either way, we don't see a middle ground where we can compromise.

Toque.

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #468 on: March 06, 2019, 11:39:29 AM »
The interesting thing to me about this is -- why are conservatives so focused on whether individual people are racist / sexist / homophobic / whatever?

Why is it so much more important for them to not be thought of as racists / sexists / homophobes than it is for others to not be subjected to racism / sexism / homophobia?

In the vast majority of cases, it doesn't matter whether an individual is "a racist / sexist," what matters is the systems and patterns in place, and the way that people speak and behave and vote within those systems.

Put another way, if someone is a horrible virulent racist in their heart of hearts, but I can't tell by the way they speak / behave / vote, then I don't care. It's completely irrelevant what someone *is,* what is important is what they *do.*

And if you still support the Donald at this point in history ... if you are denying the existence of societal systems that are changing but have been in place for literally thousands of years and are still running today ... if you are getting defensive about new ideas that you don't understand, instead of trying to understand them ... then your actions are saying everything that needs to be said about who you are and what you stand for, and it ain't equality or democracy.

The fragility on display here is really something else.

A lot to unpack here.

The interesting thing to me about this is -- why are conservatives so focused on whether individual people are racist / sexist / homophobic / whatever?

Is that a typo? ;)

Why is it so much more important for them to not be thought of as racists / sexists / homophobes than it is for others to not be subjected to racism / sexism / homophobia?

Are you saying that all Conservatives are o.k. with racism, sexism, homophobia as long was they don't get labeled one of the isms? That is just not true. A large part of the problem is that what one person defines as one of the labels doesn't translate to the definition for other people. We aren't singing from the same music sheet on these definitions.

In the vast majority of cases, it doesn't matter whether an individual is "a racist / sexist," what matters is the systems and patterns in place, and the way that people speak and behave and vote within those systems.

Put another way, if someone is a horrible virulent racist in their heart of hearts, but I can't tell by the way they speak / behave / vote, then I don't care. It's completely irrelevant what someone *is,* what is important is what they *do.*

Absolutely. Nobody can control other people's thoughts or prosecute thought crimes. The problem is too many people want to ascribe motive when they truly have no idea what a person's reasoning behind their actions are, as well as an intolerance in allowing someone else to interpret events differently than their own.

And if you still support the Donald at this point in history ... if you are denying the existence of societal systems that are changing but have been in place for literally thousands of years and are still running today ... if you are getting defensive about new ideas that you don't understand, instead of trying to understand them ... then your actions are saying everything that needs to be said about who you are and what you stand for, and it ain't equality or democracy.


What ideas are out there that you think Conservatives don't understand? What societal systems do you think are changing? Honest question.





GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16041
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #469 on: March 06, 2019, 11:40:17 AM »
Fox news.  It openly spouts racist, sexist, and homophobic propaganda on a regular basis.  They like the Republican party, which openly supports and condones racism, homophobia, and sexism.

Your premise seems utterly ridiculous to me.  We'll just have to disagree at this point.  I can't start with some sort of assumption that everyone on Fox News and in the Republican party is an open homophobe, sexist and racist.

That is specifically what GuitarStv did not say.  Why are you doing that?

The network and major members of the party spout terrible views.  Yet people associated with the network and the party don't like being associated with those terrible views.

Yet somehow, you got to, "You're accusing every Fox News commentator and every Republican of being openly bigoted."

How do you think we can't see you doing this?

Toque.

I'm sorry.  I don't know what you are accusing me of.  I really don't.  GuitarStv just said Fox News OPENLY spouts racist, sexist, and homophobic propaganda ON A REGULAR BASIS.  And the Republican Party openly supports and condones racism, homophobia, and sexism.

If that's not saying Fox News (and those associated with it) and the Republican Party (ie, Republicans) are not bigoted/racist/sexist, etc.  Then I apologize, I don't understand the logic or what GuitarStv is trying to say.  To me it's absolutely implying Republicans and Fox News is racist/sexist/homophobic.  If I'm misreading it, I'm open to an explanation.

It's simple. To openly support means just that. To condone means to allow to continue, often times with reluctance. Condone may not necessarily mean they openly support it, they just simple might "look the other way." You have a President, chosen predominantly by the Republican party, who is openly and unequivocally racist. To this day some 90% of Republicans still approve and support Trump. Some racist openly support him. Others, who choose to support him also choose to condone racism. They may not openly support racism, they just don't give a shit that Trump is racist.

Think of it this way. If you saw someone being raped would you look the other way allowing it to continue all the while claiming you don't support rape, or would you step in and do something about it? Looking the other way sure isn't going to be regarded too highly, especially by the victims.

I don't buy in to the premise that Trump is openly racist.  I know, shocking.... but would you mind providing some examples on what you consider openly racist?  We can tackle one or two and again, I'm open to listening to your interpretation.

Donald Trump said that an American judge could not be impartial while presiding over the Trump University case because of his Mexican heritage.  Donald Trump was very explicit that it was because of his race that the judge could not be impartial.

What do you call this comment?


This is a good one.  Because it brings up an interesting point about how we define racism.  I can 100% see where you are coming from when you call him racist. The comments were largely due to his Mexican heritage.  However, the actual definition of racism has to do with believing a race is superior over another.  When I hear "racism" - I absolutely think of "superiority over another race" - which again, is the definition. That doesn't appear to be the case at all with this.  Trump didn't say Curiel couldn't rule simply because he was Mexican and Mexicans are inferior.  Trump actually said Curiel should be proud of his heritage. If you read what you posted, Trump said a previous judge on the case was more fair and he believed he was being treated very unfairly (agree or not, it's how Trump obviously felt).  Trump believed it was fair to question the judge based on some rulings he disagreed with and the political climate at the time which was VERY much centered around Mexico.  The judge being Mexican, in Southern California, Obama appointee, and part of the La Raza Lawyers Association (which is viewed as sympathetic to immigrants crossing the border).  These are unquestionably points that a reasonable person might take in to account when determining bias.  Where is the superiority here?

I disagreed with Trump on that point.  I think judges have to be viewed as impartial until they prove otherwise.  Of course, if you read the transcript again, it's clear Trump thinks the judge isn't fair and impartial at the time of the comments.  I still thought he was out of line for making the comments about Judge Curiel and found it fairly offensive.  Certainly not presidential.  These would be arguments you might make in an appeals court if you are challenging the fairness of the ruling and questioning potential bias, but to challenge the judge right off the bat?  I didn't like that at all.  It sets a bad precedent and we can't go down that path with judges.  But racist, no.

Trump said that a judge who had Mexican heritage was unfit to act as a judge, because he was Mexican.  He declared the man inferior (in this case inferior as an objective decision maker) because of his race.  This is a declaration of racial inferiority.

That's why Paul Ryan declared it textbook racism.

So racist, yes.



I need to ask this, what line would Trump need to cross before you admitted his racism?  Is there anything that he could do?

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3987
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #470 on: March 06, 2019, 11:42:35 AM »
Fox news.  It openly spouts racist, sexist, and homophobic propaganda on a regular basis.  They like the Republican party, which openly supports and condones racism, homophobia, and sexism.

Your premise seems utterly ridiculous to me.  We'll just have to disagree at this point.  I can't start with some sort of assumption that everyone on Fox News and in the Republican party is an open homophobe, sexist and racist.

That is specifically what GuitarStv did not say.  Why are you doing that?

The network and major members of the party spout terrible views.  Yet people associated with the network and the party don't like being associated with those terrible views.

Yet somehow, you got to, "You're accusing every Fox News commentator and every Republican of being openly bigoted."

How do you think we can't see you doing this?

Toque.

I'm sorry.  I don't know what you are accusing me of.  I really don't.  GuitarStv just said Fox News OPENLY spouts racist, sexist, and homophobic propaganda ON A REGULAR BASIS.  And the Republican Party openly supports and condones racism, homophobia, and sexism.

If that's not saying Fox News (and those associated with it) and the Republican Party (ie, Republicans) are not bigoted/racist/sexist, etc.  Then I apologize, I don't understand the logic or what GuitarStv is trying to say.  To me it's absolutely implying Republicans and Fox News is racist/sexist/homophobic.  If I'm misreading it, I'm open to an explanation.

It's simple. To openly support means just that. To condone means to allow to continue, often times with reluctance. Condone may not necessarily mean they openly support it, they just simple might "look the other way." You have a President, chosen predominantly by the Republican party, who is openly and unequivocally racist. To this day some 90% of Republicans still approve and support Trump. Some racist openly support him. Others, who choose to support him also choose to condone racism. They may not openly support racism, they just don't give a shit that Trump is racist.

Think of it this way. If you saw someone being raped would you look the other way allowing it to continue all the while claiming you don't support rape, or would you step in and do something about it? Looking the other way sure isn't going to be regarded too highly, especially by the victims.

I don't buy in to the premise that Trump is openly racist.  I know, shocking.... but would you mind providing some examples on what you consider openly racist?  We can tackle one or two and again, I'm open to listening to your interpretation.

Donald Trump said that an American judge could not be impartial while presiding over the Trump University case because of his Mexican heritage.  Donald Trump was very explicit that it was because of his race that the judge could not be impartial.

What do you call this comment?


This is a good one.  Because it brings up an interesting point about how we define racism.  I can 100% see where you are coming from when you call him racist. The comments were largely due to his Mexican heritage.  However, the actual definition of racism has to do with believing a race is superior over another.  When I hear "racism" - I absolutely think of "superiority over another race" - which again, is the definition. That doesn't appear to be the case at all with this.  Trump didn't say Curiel couldn't rule simply because he was Mexican and Mexicans are inferior.  Trump actually said Curiel should be proud of his heritage. If you read what you posted, Trump said a previous judge on the case was more fair and he believed he was being treated very unfairly (agree or not, it's how Trump obviously felt).  Trump believed it was fair to question the judge based on some rulings he disagreed with and the political climate at the time which was VERY much centered around Mexico.  The judge being Mexican, in Southern California, Obama appointee, and part of the La Raza Lawyers Association (which is viewed as sympathetic to immigrants crossing the border).  These are unquestionably points that a reasonable person might take in to account when determining bias.  Where is the superiority here?

I disagreed with Trump on that point.  I think judges have to be viewed as impartial until they prove otherwise.  Of course, if you read the transcript again, it's clear Trump thinks the judge isn't fair and impartial at the time of the comments.  I still thought he was out of line for making the comments about Judge Curiel and found it fairly offensive.  Certainly not presidential.  These would be arguments you might make in an appeals court if you are challenging the fairness of the ruling and questioning potential bias, but to challenge the judge right off the bat?  I didn't like that at all.  It sets a bad precedent and we can't go down that path with judges.  But racist, no.

To clarify, again, I get where you are coming from.   There are certainly prejudices that Trump seems to display.  It makes sense for you to dislike him for it.  But I don't think that is the same as being flat our racist.

You are making excuses for Trump, you are saying, well maybe it is for these other reasons (Obama appointee, from southern California) that he doesn't like this judge and saying this judge cannot be impartial and cannot do his job.
You then try to dance around the racism saying it's not racist because he never explictly said Mexican is worse than being white. What does he say about the judge? He says the judge cannot be impartial (which is a critical component of his position, being a judge). He's essentially saying he can't do his job because he's Mexican. 
 
When he is called on it, Trump ACTUALLY SAYS, no it's really is because he's Mexican. Why do you ignore Trump's own words to try to make him seem better than he is? It's astounding.

"TAPPER: I don't care if you criticize him, that's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying, if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job.
TRUMP: I think that's why he's doing it. I think that's why he's doing it."
« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 11:51:26 AM by partgypsy »

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #471 on: March 06, 2019, 11:44:57 AM »
Trump said that a judge who had Mexican heritage was unfit to act as a judge, because he was Mexican.  He declared the man inferior (in this case inferior as an objective decision maker) because of his race.  This is a declaration of racial inferiority.

That's why Paul Ryan declared it textbook racism.

So racist, yes.



I need to ask this, what line would Trump need to cross before you admitted his racism?  Is there anything that he could do?


I honestly don't know.  That's why I asked for examples.  You are stretching with the Mexican judge, in my opinion.  Trump was questioning bias, not whether someone was inferior or superior because of their race.  An example showing Trump believing he's superior because he is white would be a line to cross.  Because that is actual racism.  Inappropriate and offensive comments do not equate to racism.  They are inappropriate and offensive comments.  Totally valid reason to hate the guy.  But "racist" has a different meaning.

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8004
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #472 on: March 06, 2019, 11:48:13 AM »
Trump said that a judge who had Mexican heritage was unfit to act as a judge, because he was Mexican.  He declared the man inferior (in this case inferior as an objective decision maker) because of his race.  This is a declaration of racial inferiority.

That's why Paul Ryan declared it textbook racism.

So racist, yes.



I need to ask this, what line would Trump need to cross before you admitted his racism?  Is there anything that he could do?


I honestly don't know.  That's why I asked for examples.  You are stretching with the Mexican judge, in my opinion.  Trump was questioning bias, not whether someone was inferior or superior because of their race.  An example showing Trump believing he's superior because he is white would be a line to cross.  Because that is actual racism.  Inappropriate and offensive comments do not equate to racism.  They are inappropriate and offensive comments.  Totally valid reason to hate the guy.  But "racist" has a different meaning.
Apparently the answer for many is "Trump would just have to come out and say he's racist."  And still many would claim he's not.

Sigh.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3987
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #473 on: March 06, 2019, 11:49:20 AM »
Trump said that a judge who had Mexican heritage was unfit to act as a judge, because he was Mexican.  He declared the man inferior (in this case inferior as an objective decision maker) because of his race.  This is a declaration of racial inferiority.

That's why Paul Ryan declared it textbook racism.

So racist, yes.



I need to ask this, what line would Trump need to cross before you admitted his racism?  Is there anything that he could do?


I honestly don't know.  That's why I asked for examples.  You are stretching with the Mexican judge, in my opinion.  Trump was questioning bias, not whether someone was inferior or superior because of their race.  An example showing Trump believing he's superior because he is white would be a line to cross.  Because that is actual racism.  Inappropriate and offensive comments do not equate to racism.  They are inappropriate and offensive comments.  Totally valid reason to hate the guy.  But "racist" has a different meaning.

Just to be clear, I'm going to assume you read through the Fortune and the Vox articles, nothing in those articles made you realize, that Trump says and does racist things? Why do you think they had black employees hide and stay out of view (but not white employees) when he was touring his properties? Can you give me an alternative explanation?

He has literally been quoted saying he doesn't like black people touching his money. Seriously.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 11:53:26 AM by partgypsy »

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #474 on: March 06, 2019, 11:51:02 AM »
Speaking of: inclusivity. If that is your goal perhaps you should enforce your intolerance policy uniformly. Because right now you basically have a large, flashing, neon sign above the Off-Topics screaming that nobody who is a conservative or even remotely supports the President is welcome here. So that statement of inclusivity is disingenuous at best. Let's drop the pretense.

With that said, it's your dog and pony show. If you want to exclude people, than that's your prerogative. Just stop wth the bullshit though.

I hold pretty conservative views, when compared to many of my fellow American posters here. Look at my post count, and see that I'm quite welcome. My strategy is avoid being a dick. Seems to work.

I wasn't a dick until I was threatened unfairly. FrugalTogue displayed an abuse of power. It's literally as simple as that. Either you agree with his general premises or he will ban you. Crystal clear. I was completely respectful ( and yes I challenged him, but that does not equate to trolling ) in the conversation leading up to his threats.

The title of this thread asks why does it have to be this way? Because differing opinions (within respectful parameters) get shut down in these forums. Once again, where did Steveo cross the line? What warranted him being labeled a troll and the threat of banishment? Nobody has answered this question.

People have differing opinions for valid reasons many times. If you create an echo chamber you will never bridge this divide.

Since he refuses to explain what he is referring to when he uses the word patriarchy, I'm pretty sure he is consistently and purposefully arguing against a straw man even after multiple people point it out to him.  To me, that's pretty clearly trolling.

Thanks for the response. For the record, I hate these damn terms like patriarchy and all of that crap.

From what I understood, his main point was that Western society has moved on from a strictly patriarchal system and the remnants are largely a result of men and women making individual choices. Hence a lot of the results that we see today.

Is that a reasonable interpretation and mindset to have? I'm pretty sure he was arguing from his individual life experiences. I don't know that it makes him wrong if he hasn't experienced what others have, and I don't recall him invalidating other's experiences.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16041
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #475 on: March 06, 2019, 11:51:50 AM »
I need to ask this, what line would Trump need to cross before you admitted his racism?  Is there anything that he could do?


I honestly don't know.

Thank you for your honesty.



That's why I asked for examples.  You are stretching with the Mexican judge, in my opinion.  Trump was questioning bias, not whether someone was inferior or superior because of their race.  An example showing Trump believing he's superior because he is white would be a line to cross.  Because that is actual racism.  Inappropriate and offensive comments do not equate to racism.  They are inappropriate and offensive comments.  Totally valid reason to hate the guy.  But "racist" has a different meaning.

I think that you're stretching in order to avoid calling Trump racist here.

Calling a judge biased solely because of his race is a clear declaration of inferiority at doing his job.  There's  no nuance at all.  Racist doesn't have any different meaning.  I'm using the dictionary definition.  The same one that Paul Ryan used.  You're bending over backwards to change facts to match your world view.

EvenSteven

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
  • Location: St. Louis
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #476 on: March 06, 2019, 11:52:45 AM »
Trump said that a judge who had Mexican heritage was unfit to act as a judge, because he was Mexican.  He declared the man inferior (in this case inferior as an objective decision maker) because of his race.  This is a declaration of racial inferiority.

That's why Paul Ryan declared it textbook racism.

So racist, yes.



I need to ask this, what line would Trump need to cross before you admitted his racism?  Is there anything that he could do?


I honestly don't know.  That's why I asked for examples.  You are stretching with the Mexican judge, in my opinion.  Trump was questioning bias, not whether someone was inferior or superior because of their race.  An example showing Trump believing he's superior because he is white would be a line to cross.  Because that is actual racism.  Inappropriate and offensive comments do not equate to racism.  They are inappropriate and offensive comments.  Totally valid reason to hate the guy.  But "racist" has a different meaning.

This is a really good point and parallels why the Klan is so misunderstood as racist. They didn't hate black people, they hated planks of wood arranged at right angles. That is why they set them on fire. They just didn't like the wood.

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #477 on: March 06, 2019, 11:59:52 AM »
Trump said that a judge who had Mexican heritage was unfit to act as a judge, because he was Mexican.  He declared the man inferior (in this case inferior as an objective decision maker) because of his race.  This is a declaration of racial inferiority.

That's why Paul Ryan declared it textbook racism.

So racist, yes.



I need to ask this, what line would Trump need to cross before you admitted his racism?  Is there anything that he could do?


I honestly don't know.  That's why I asked for examples.  You are stretching with the Mexican judge, in my opinion.  Trump was questioning bias, not whether someone was inferior or superior because of their race.  An example showing Trump believing he's superior because he is white would be a line to cross.  Because that is actual racism.  Inappropriate and offensive comments do not equate to racism.  They are inappropriate and offensive comments.  Totally valid reason to hate the guy.  But "racist" has a different meaning.

Just to be clear, I'm going to assume you read through the Fortune and the Vox articles, nothing in those articles made you realize, that Trump says and does racist things? Why do you think they had black employees hide and stay out of view (but not white employees) when he was touring his properties? Can you give me an alternative explanation?

He has literally been quoted saying he doesn't like black people touching his money. Seriously.

I pulled up the Vox article real quick to find the black employees hiding comment.  That is flimsy, at best.  And there is no rebuttal or other side of the story.  I don't think that's fair or reasonable.  If it's true, I would say racist, yes.  But for some reason I bet there are people who deny the claims are true.

Most of the list is similar.  Central Park Five.  I don't know much about it, but this seems more like Trump was furious over a terrible crime and wanted severe penalties.  Just because the defendants were black, Trump = racist?

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #478 on: March 06, 2019, 12:00:53 PM »
Trump said that a judge who had Mexican heritage was unfit to act as a judge, because he was Mexican.  He declared the man inferior (in this case inferior as an objective decision maker) because of his race.  This is a declaration of racial inferiority.

That's why Paul Ryan declared it textbook racism.

So racist, yes.



I need to ask this, what line would Trump need to cross before you admitted his racism?  Is there anything that he could do?


I honestly don't know.  That's why I asked for examples.  You are stretching with the Mexican judge, in my opinion.  Trump was questioning bias, not whether someone was inferior or superior because of their race.  An example showing Trump believing he's superior because he is white would be a line to cross.  Because that is actual racism.  Inappropriate and offensive comments do not equate to racism.  They are inappropriate and offensive comments.  Totally valid reason to hate the guy.  But "racist" has a different meaning.

This is a really good point and parallels why the Klan is so misunderstood as racist. They didn't hate black people, they hated planks of wood arranged at right angles. That is why they set them on fire. They just didn't like the wood.

Utterly ridiculous.  The Klan openly believed that the white race was superior and said so.

Cool Friend

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #479 on: March 06, 2019, 12:02:17 PM »
Trump said that a judge who had Mexican heritage was unfit to act as a judge, because he was Mexican.  He declared the man inferior (in this case inferior as an objective decision maker) because of his race.  This is a declaration of racial inferiority.

That's why Paul Ryan declared it textbook racism.

So racist, yes.



I need to ask this, what line would Trump need to cross before you admitted his racism?  Is there anything that he could do?


I honestly don't know.  That's why I asked for examples.


Then you don't belong in this discussion. You admit you don't know what would constitute racist behavior.  And you cherry picked the one of many examples provided to you of Trump's racism that you feel you're best able to split hairs about.  You're dissembling.

Edit: now that I see you've briefly mentioned two of the other examples, it's even more clear that you don't know much about this subject at all..

Though I know you won't heed this advice, because you have no honest intention of "bridging the gap," I will nevertheless recommend that you do some more reading and research.  There is more to racism that declaring to the world "I am a big time racist and a member of the superior race."  Because if that's your functional definition, you owe it to yourself to learn more.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 12:05:09 PM by Cool Friend »

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #480 on: March 06, 2019, 12:06:43 PM »
I think that you're stretching in order to avoid calling Trump racist here.

Calling a judge biased solely because of his race is a clear declaration of inferiority at doing his job.  There's  no nuance at all.  Racist doesn't have any different meaning.  I'm using the dictionary definition.  The same one that Paul Ryan used.  You're bending over backwards to change facts to match your world view.

"Solely because of his race" - if that were true, I think I would agree with you that it's racist.  But that's not what happened.  The context was much more than that.  It would be naive to ignore the political charged turmoil at the time and how that related to Trumps comments.

I'm definitely not bending over backwards, I might even suggest you are doing the same by seemingly ignoring context and cherry picking a single sentence.  But seriously, I do get what you are saying and why you believe Trump is a racist.  I just view it differently.  I think he is offensive, derogatory, and says highly inappropriate and non-presidential things.  But I disagree that he believes he is superior because he is white.  At least from what I have seen when taking everything in to context.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16041
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #481 on: March 06, 2019, 12:11:05 PM »
I think that you're stretching in order to avoid calling Trump racist here.

Calling a judge biased solely because of his race is a clear declaration of inferiority at doing his job.  There's  no nuance at all.  Racist doesn't have any different meaning.  I'm using the dictionary definition.  The same one that Paul Ryan used.  You're bending over backwards to change facts to match your world view.

"Solely because of his race" - if that were true, I think I would agree with you that it's racist.  But that's not what happened.  The context was much more than that.  It would be naive to ignore the political charged turmoil at the time and how that related to Trumps comments.

I'm definitely not bending over backwards, I might even suggest you are doing the same by seemingly ignoring context and cherry picking a single sentence.  But seriously, I do get what you are saying and why you believe Trump is a racist.  I just view it differently.  I think he is offensive, derogatory, and says highly inappropriate and non-presidential things.  But I disagree that he believes he is superior because he is white.  At least from what I have seen when taking everything in to context.

OK.  So saying that someone is inferior at his job because of ethnicity is not racist to you. 

Only a declaration of racial superiority is?

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #482 on: March 06, 2019, 12:12:54 PM »
Trump said that a judge who had Mexican heritage was unfit to act as a judge, because he was Mexican.  He declared the man inferior (in this case inferior as an objective decision maker) because of his race.  This is a declaration of racial inferiority.

That's why Paul Ryan declared it textbook racism.

So racist, yes.



I need to ask this, what line would Trump need to cross before you admitted his racism?  Is there anything that he could do?


I honestly don't know.  That's why I asked for examples.


Then you don't belong in this discussion. You admit you don't know what would constitute racist behavior.  And you cherry picked the one of many examples provided to you of Trump's racism that you feel you're best able to split hairs about.  You're dissembling.

Edit: now that I see you've briefly mentioned two of the other examples, it's even more clear that you don't know much about this subject at all..

Though I know you won't heed this advice, because you have no honest intention of "bridging the gap," I will nevertheless recommend that you do some more reading and research.  There is more to racism that declaring to the world "I am a big time racist and a member of the superior race."  Because if that's your functional definition, you owe it to yourself to learn more.

I was asked to invent a line to cross.  How do you answer that?  I have no idea what someone would need to say or do.  He crossed your line, that's ok.  But why can't I have a different view on the subject?  Race and racism is a very deep topic with a substantial amount of nuance.  What you see as racism doesn't mean everyone else has to.  And those who don't agree, it doesn't mean they are ok with racism, they just view things differently.  We would make a lot more progress if we could be more understanding of others and listen to them.  I'm certainly listening to you guys and making an effort to understand your views.  It's not reciprocal.  That's ok, I don't mind.  But at least recognize it.

Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2512
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #483 on: March 06, 2019, 12:14:40 PM »

Re: steveo (and others like him), he seems to think that if there are no explicitly racist laws, that systemic racism doesn’t exist.  And, as I predicted, when presented with evidence that racism does exit he simply ignores it and digs his heels in.  Typical of his kind.  He’s the type of person that thinks “hey, I’M not racist, so therefore no one else is either.”  Or “Since I don’t see people in my immediate vicinity engage explicitly racist behavior, racism doesn’t exist.”

If I might quote myself from Page 5 of this thread, this is exactly what we've seen play out.  Downplay or deny actual evidence when it's presented and continue as if the "extreme left" is being silly. 

I will say this, it's been very interesting to see the "moderates" on the right twist themselves into knots trying to defend this guy.  Even if Trump said explicitly "Black people suck", these people would still say "well, there's nuance there" and "Hey, the world is a complicated place and he might be saying that for complicated reasons". 

No, the reason is not complicated.  It's simple.  It's obvious.  If you don't see it, it's because you don't WANT to see it.  Because it makes you uncomfortable for some reason (god knows why).  But there you have it. 

Put another way:

Random moderate conservative:  "I don't see that sexism/racism exists"

Several women:  "Here's examples of sexism that I've experienced directly".

Random moderate conservative:  "I still don't see that sexism/racism exists". 

It's rather breathtaking to watch this level of cognitive dissonance between their view of the world and the facts presented by others. 

So what will convince these "moderates"?  Nothing.  Nothing will ever, ever, ever, ever convince them. As I stated previously theres no real value to discussing it with them, the only real thing that can be done is simply out-vote them and make the change over their self-imposed blindness.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3987
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #484 on: March 06, 2019, 12:18:26 PM »
I think that you're stretching in order to avoid calling Trump racist here.

Calling a judge biased solely because of his race is a clear declaration of inferiority at doing his job.  There's  no nuance at all.  Racist doesn't have any different meaning.  I'm using the dictionary definition.  The same one that Paul Ryan used.  You're bending over backwards to change facts to match your world view.

"Solely because of his race" - if that were true, I think I would agree with you that it's racist.  But that's not what happened.  The context was much more than that.  It would be naive to ignore the political charged turmoil at the time and how that related to Trumps comments.

I'm definitely not bending over backwards, I might even suggest you are doing the same by seemingly ignoring context and cherry picking a single sentence.  But seriously, I do get what you are saying and why you believe Trump is a racist.  I just view it differently.  I think he is offensive, derogatory, and says highly inappropriate and non-presidential things.  But I disagree that he believes he is superior because he is white.  At least from what I have seen when taking everything in to context.

Well, you are using a different definition of racism than everyone else. People who are racist, don't wear signs around their necks and say "I'm a racist and believe the white race is superior to blacks." If that's what it takes you to believe someone is a racist, it's not going to happen. But they will say things like "there are good people on both sides" (when one side is White Supremacists). They will get the grand Wizard of the KKK endorsing their presidential bid.

His history of not renting to black people is textbook institutional racism. It didn't have anything to do with whether their credit rating was good or not, but simply based on whether they were Black. If they were black they were called back and told the property was not available. It's illegal and it's racist.
This is not some rumor or isolated incident but standard practice at his NYC businesses.   
« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 12:24:24 PM by partgypsy »

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #485 on: March 06, 2019, 12:22:15 PM »
I think that you're stretching in order to avoid calling Trump racist here.

Calling a judge biased solely because of his race is a clear declaration of inferiority at doing his job.  There's  no nuance at all.  Racist doesn't have any different meaning.  I'm using the dictionary definition.  The same one that Paul Ryan used.  You're bending over backwards to change facts to match your world view.

"Solely because of his race" - if that were true, I think I would agree with you that it's racist.  But that's not what happened.  The context was much more than that.  It would be naive to ignore the political charged turmoil at the time and how that related to Trumps comments.

I'm definitely not bending over backwards, I might even suggest you are doing the same by seemingly ignoring context and cherry picking a single sentence.  But seriously, I do get what you are saying and why you believe Trump is a racist.  I just view it differently.  I think he is offensive, derogatory, and says highly inappropriate and non-presidential things.  But I disagree that he believes he is superior because he is white.  At least from what I have seen when taking everything in to context.

OK.  So saying that someone is inferior at his job because of ethnicity is not racist to you. 

Only a declaration of racial superiority is?

That's a stretch and misrepresenting what was said.  I don't play technicality games.  I read the entire story and try and understand the context the best that I can.  You and I have to simply disagree on this.  Trump did not suggest Curiel was racially inferior.  He claimed that due to the highly charged political climate surrounding Mexico, that a judge with Mexican heritage, who is a part of a lawyers association that is sympathetic to illegal aliens, an Obama appointee, etc... might have bias against him and based on what Trump felt were unfair rulings, he believed that played a part.  Look how charged people are just on this thread?  Are you denying that someone may show bias?  I don't like accusing judges of bias, specifically due to the profession itself, but it's not unreasonable for someone who believes they are being treated unfairly to suggest bias.

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #486 on: March 06, 2019, 12:30:17 PM »
Speaking of: inclusivity. If that is your goal perhaps you should enforce your intolerance policy uniformly. Because right now you basically have a large, flashing, neon sign above the Off-Topics screaming that nobody who is a conservative or even remotely supports the President is welcome here. So that statement of inclusivity is disingenuous at best. Let's drop the pretense.

With that said, it's your dog and pony show. If you want to exclude people, than that's your prerogative. Just stop wth the bullshit though.

I hold pretty conservative views, when compared to many of my fellow American posters here. Look at my post count, and see that I'm quite welcome. My strategy is avoid being a dick. Seems to work.

I wasn't a dick until I was threatened unfairly. FrugalTogue displayed an abuse of power. It's literally as simple as that. Either you agree with his general premises or he will ban you. Crystal clear. I was completely respectful ( and yes I challenged him, but that does not equate to trolling ) in the conversation leading up to his threats.

The title of this thread asks why does it have to be this way? Because differing opinions (within respectful parameters) get shut down in these forums. Once again, where did Steveo cross the line? What warranted him being labeled a troll and the threat of banishment? Nobody has answered this question.

People have differing opinions for valid reasons many times. If you create an echo chamber you will never bridge this divide.

Since he refuses to explain what he is referring to when he uses the word patriarchy, I'm pretty sure he is consistently and purposefully arguing against a straw man even after multiple people point it out to him.  To me, that's pretty clearly trolling.

Thanks for the response. For the record, I hate these damn terms like patriarchy and all of that crap.

From what I understood, his main point was that Western society has moved on from a strictly patriarchal system and the remnants are largely a result of men and women making individual choices. Hence a lot of the results that we see today.

Is that a reasonable interpretation and mindset to have? I'm pretty sure he was arguing from his individual life experiences. I don't know that it makes him wrong if he hasn't experienced what others have, and I don't recall him invalidating other's experiences.

I don't honestly care what he believes or how he defines any of the words that he uses.  Even if we assume that it was just a miscommunication, the problem is his refusal to engage in a manner that would clear up the miscommunication.  The fact that he chooses to continuously argue against whatever it is that he believes the word patriarchy means instead of responding to what the other party is actually trying to say indicates to me that it's more likely an intentional tactic to rile people up.  If he was actually interested in having an honest discussion he would need to acknowledge the differences in definitions and take said differences into account when debating.  Arguing that "the patriarchy doesn't exist" isn't an honest response to someone else's statement that "the patriarchy does exist" when the two people are referencing completely different things by the word patriarchy.  And doing so intentionally, to me, is trolling.

Cool Friend

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #487 on: March 06, 2019, 12:31:50 PM »


I was asked to invent a line to cross.  How do you answer that?  I have no idea what someone would need to say or do.  He crossed your line, that's ok.  But why can't I have a different view on the subject?

Of course you can have a different view of the subject.  But you are unable to think of any hypothetical word or action that would make someone racist.  This is tantamount to saying there is nothing a person can do or say that would make them racist.  You are entitled to your view.  It's just intellectually bankrupt.

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #488 on: March 06, 2019, 12:34:55 PM »
But they will say things like "there are good people on both sides" (when one side is White Supremacists). They will get the grand Wizard of the KKK endorsing their presidential bid.

His history of not renting to black people is textbook institutional racism. It didn't have anything to do with whether their credit rating was good or not, but simply based on whether they were Black. If they were black they were called back and told the property was not available. It's illegal and it's racist.
This is not some rumor or isolated incident but standard practice at his NYC businesses.

"there are good people on both sides" is totally out of context and was weaponized.  As I pointed out, context is important.  And when your arguments are based on weaponizing and misrepresenting one liners, it weakens the argument.  So you are not only not making your point that Trump is a racist, you are hurting your case.

"I think there's blame on both sides. You look at both sides. I think there's blame on both sides" ... "You had some very bad people in that group" ...  "But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides" ... "I've condemned neo-Nazis. I've condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists, by any stretch"

Trump called out and condemned the very bad people in the group - nazis and white supremacists, and then clearly is trying to be non-divisive by saying fuck the nazis, but there are good people on both sides of this.  He's trying to say something decent and it gets turned on him and he's labeled racist from it?  Come on now.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #489 on: March 06, 2019, 12:35:08 PM »
ChewMeUp, can you rule on the following image:



All of the statistics are made from whole cloth and grossly exaggerate the threat that black people pose to white people. That, combined with the scary caricature of a black guy holding the gun sideways makes me think that this graphic is a racist attempt at misinforming the public. It is essentially "red meat" for a racist audience.

Do you think that description is accurate?

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2503
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #490 on: March 06, 2019, 12:35:15 PM »
Trump said that a judge who had Mexican heritage was unfit to act as a judge, because he was Mexican.  He declared the man inferior (in this case inferior as an objective decision maker) because of his race.  This is a declaration of racial inferiority.

That's why Paul Ryan declared it textbook racism.

So racist, yes.



I need to ask this, what line would Trump need to cross before you admitted his racism?  Is there anything that he could do?


I honestly don't know.  That's why I asked for examples.


Then you don't belong in this discussion. You admit you don't know what would constitute racist behavior.  And you cherry picked the one of many examples provided to you of Trump's racism that you feel you're best able to split hairs about.  You're dissembling.

Edit: now that I see you've briefly mentioned two of the other examples, it's even more clear that you don't know much about this subject at all..

Though I know you won't heed this advice, because you have no honest intention of "bridging the gap," I will nevertheless recommend that you do some more reading and research.  There is more to racism that declaring to the world "I am a big time racist and a member of the superior race."  Because if that's your functional definition, you owe it to yourself to learn more.

I was asked to invent a line to cross.  How do you answer that?  I have no idea what someone would need to say or do.  He crossed your line, that's ok.  But why can't I have a different view on the subject?  Race and racism is a very deep topic with a substantial amount of nuance.  What you see as racism doesn't mean everyone else has to.  And those who don't agree, it doesn't mean they are ok with racism, they just view things differently.  We would make a lot more progress if we could be more understanding of others and listen to them.  I'm certainly listening to you guys and making an effort to understand your views.  It's not reciprocal.  That's ok, I don't mind.  But at least recognize it.

I think using a strict technical definition of the word racism as you described earlier, the line would be drawn at specifically stating that one thinks another race is inferior. The reality is that the definition of racism as used in the modern English language is more complex than that, but I don't want to get into that discussion because I think we can continue the current discussion without agreeing on a definition of racism. We could go back and switch out the word "racist" with "racially insensitive", "racially prejudiced", or "treating people differently because of their race" and most of the same points would stand. For the record, I think these are the things people are really meaning to say when they point out that something is racist.

I believe the post that got us here was:

Quote
Fox News regularly touts racist views, so yes, I assume that people who prefer to get their news from there are fine with racism.

Change it to:

Quote
Fox News regularly touts racially prejudiced views, so yes, I assume that people who prefer to get their news from there are fine with racial prejudice.

Would you accept this statement?
« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 12:39:24 PM by Dabnasty »

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #491 on: March 06, 2019, 12:36:40 PM »


I was asked to invent a line to cross.  How do you answer that?  I have no idea what someone would need to say or do.  He crossed your line, that's ok.  But why can't I have a different view on the subject?

Of course you can have a different view of the subject.  But you are unable to think of any hypothetical word or action that would make someone racist.  This is tantamount to saying there is nothing a person can do or say that would make them racist.  You are entitled to your view.  It's just intellectually bankrupt.

Your conclusion is not logical.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16041
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #492 on: March 06, 2019, 12:37:24 PM »
I think that you're stretching in order to avoid calling Trump racist here.

Calling a judge biased solely because of his race is a clear declaration of inferiority at doing his job.  There's  no nuance at all.  Racist doesn't have any different meaning.  I'm using the dictionary definition.  The same one that Paul Ryan used.  You're bending over backwards to change facts to match your world view.

"Solely because of his race" - if that were true, I think I would agree with you that it's racist.  But that's not what happened.  The context was much more than that.  It would be naive to ignore the political charged turmoil at the time and how that related to Trumps comments.

I'm definitely not bending over backwards, I might even suggest you are doing the same by seemingly ignoring context and cherry picking a single sentence.  But seriously, I do get what you are saying and why you believe Trump is a racist.  I just view it differently.  I think he is offensive, derogatory, and says highly inappropriate and non-presidential things.  But I disagree that he believes he is superior because he is white.  At least from what I have seen when taking everything in to context.

OK.  So saying that someone is inferior at his job because of ethnicity is not racist to you. 

Only a declaration of racial superiority is?

That's a stretch and misrepresenting what was said.  I don't play technicality games.  I read the entire story and try and understand the context the best that I can.  You and I have to simply disagree on this.  Trump did not suggest Curiel was racially inferior.  He claimed that due to the highly charged political climate surrounding Mexico, that a judge with Mexican heritage, who is a part of a lawyers association that is sympathetic to illegal aliens, an Obama appointee, etc... might have bias against him and based on what Trump felt were unfair rulings, he believed that played a part.  Look how charged people are just on this thread?  Are you denying that someone may show bias?  I don't like accusing judges of bias, specifically due to the profession itself, but it's not unreasonable for someone who believes they are being treated unfairly to suggest bias.

I already posted the dictionary defintion of racist, but you don't appear to agree with it.  I don't want to misrepresent your position, so what is your definition of racist? 

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #493 on: March 06, 2019, 12:38:30 PM »
"there are good people on both sides" is totally out of context and was weaponized.  As I pointed out, context is important.  And when your arguments are based on weaponizing and misrepresenting one liners, it weakens the argument.  So you are not only not making your point that Trump is a racist, you are hurting your case.

"I think there's blame on both sides. You look at both sides. I think there's blame on both sides" ... "You had some very bad people in that group" ...  "But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides" ... "I've condemned neo-Nazis. I've condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists, by any stretch"

Trump called out and condemned the very bad people in the group - nazis and white supremacists, and then clearly is trying to be non-divisive by saying fuck the nazis, but there are good people on both sides of this.  He's trying to say something decent and it gets turned on him and he's labeled racist from it?  Come on now.

Don't you find it odd that after Nazis and Neo Confederates marched on a town and killed a woman, the he's so concerned about making sure we all know that not everyone who willfully chose to march with them is bad?

And if we broaden the context out even further, after that statement, he spent much of the week screaming on Twitter about how wrong it is to remove confederate monuments. Monuments to men who fought for the right to keep black people as slaves.

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #494 on: March 06, 2019, 12:41:56 PM »
I was asked to invent a line to cross.  How do you answer that?  I have no idea what someone would need to say or do.  He crossed your line, that's ok.  But why can't I have a different view on the subject?  Race and racism is a very deep topic with a substantial amount of nuance.  What you see as racism doesn't mean everyone else has to.  And those who don't agree, it doesn't mean they are ok with racism, they just view things differently.  We would make a lot more progress if we could be more understanding of others and listen to them.  I'm certainly listening to you guys and making an effort to understand your views.  It's not reciprocal.  That's ok, I don't mind.  But at least recognize it.

If I understand an action to be racist and you don't then you actually will be okay with racism as I understand it.  Unless you're trying to imply that I'm required in some way to agree with your judgement of whether an action is racist or not?
« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 01:03:48 PM by shenlong55 »

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #495 on: March 06, 2019, 12:42:16 PM »
Trump said that a judge who had Mexican heritage was unfit to act as a judge, because he was Mexican.  He declared the man inferior (in this case inferior as an objective decision maker) because of his race.  This is a declaration of racial inferiority.

That's why Paul Ryan declared it textbook racism.

So racist, yes.



I need to ask this, what line would Trump need to cross before you admitted his racism?  Is there anything that he could do?


I honestly don't know.  That's why I asked for examples.


Then you don't belong in this discussion. You admit you don't know what would constitute racist behavior.  And you cherry picked the one of many examples provided to you of Trump's racism that you feel you're best able to split hairs about.  You're dissembling.

Edit: now that I see you've briefly mentioned two of the other examples, it's even more clear that you don't know much about this subject at all..

Though I know you won't heed this advice, because you have no honest intention of "bridging the gap," I will nevertheless recommend that you do some more reading and research.  There is more to racism that declaring to the world "I am a big time racist and a member of the superior race."  Because if that's your functional definition, you owe it to yourself to learn more.

I was asked to invent a line to cross.  How do you answer that?  I have no idea what someone would need to say or do.  He crossed your line, that's ok.  But why can't I have a different view on the subject?  Race and racism is a very deep topic with a substantial amount of nuance.  What you see as racism doesn't mean everyone else has to.  And those who don't agree, it doesn't mean they are ok with racism, they just view things differently.  We would make a lot more progress if we could be more understanding of others and listen to them.  I'm certainly listening to you guys and making an effort to understand your views.  It's not reciprocal.  That's ok, I don't mind.  But at least recognize it.

I think using a strict technical definition of the word racism as you described earlier, the line would be drawn at specifically stating that one thinks another race is inferior. The reality is that the definition of racism as used in the modern English language is more complex than that, but I don't want to get into that because I that's a different discussion and it wouldn't be helpful to get into that right now. We could go back and switch out the word "racist" with "racially insensitive", "racially prejudiced", or "treating people differently because of their race" and most of the same points would stand. For the record, I think these are the things people are really meaning to say when they point out that something is racist.

I believe the post that got us here was:

Quote
Fox News regularly touts racist views, so yes, I assume that people who prefer to get their news from there are fine with racism.

Change it to:

Quote
Fox News regularly touts racially prejudiced views, so yes, I assume that people who prefer to get their news from there are fine with racial prejudice.

Would you accept this statement?

I don't think Fox News regularly touts anything all that racial or prejudiced.  If you would like to provide some examples of what you mean, however, I might change my mind.  I would accept that the president touts racially insensitive views, absolutely.

I think you also hit the nail on the head when you said "these are what the people are really meaning to say when they say racist" - I fully agree.  I find these terms all have very specific meanings.  And racially insensitive does not always equal racist.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #496 on: March 06, 2019, 12:43:56 PM »
There's a difference between getting castigated for your views versus getting attacked for who you are as a person. Conservative is not a protected class, and it shouldn't be. When you are a woman, a person of color or an lgbt person, you can't change that identity, and discrimination based on who you are is a real thing, not discrimination for your political views.
I personally find many of the views epoused by forum members to be very conservative, especially compared to the typical discourse in Canada, so yes, I think conservatives are welcome here. That doesn't mean we have to accept people making outlandish statements with no evidence, inflammatory statements or ideologies that harm people on here.
If you get called racist or sexist, I think some examination of why that might have happened is in order. Often people don't recognize their own bigotry, even when it is obvious to others. I find it sexist and racist to suggest that women are just not suited to be president, that natural gender roles are why women are so underrepresented in politics and management and that black people commit more crimes and are disproportionately shot and in jail because they idealize the thug life, all statements that have been made in this thread (but I haven't gone back to check who said them). It doesn't necessarily mean that the person saying that is a Racist or a Misogynist, but they hold some misogynist and racist views. Everyone has ingrained biases, and we all have work to do to unpack them.

I think a lot of what you quote here refers to comments of mine. Where do I begin?

bigot: A person who is rigidly devoted to his own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. You do realize that calling people who you disagree with bigoted, sexist, and racist is just a little bit ironic?

Quote
I find it sexist and racist to suggest

I'm curious how you define sexism and racism. There seems to be two views. I personally define both terms to imply a belief of superiority of a sex or race over another; since I don't feel this definition fairly characterizes me (or even other posters on this thread), I take it as a juvenile insult. However, I do posit there are some differences between sexes and races (when looking at statistics of the whole populations), and maybe this is the criteria you are using to judge me, the observation of differences.

Quote
that women are just not suited to be president

I don't believe that was ever spoken in this thread. As for myself, I stated that I voted for HRC (and, for the record, BO before that).

Quote
that natural gender roles are why women are so underrepresented in politics and management

This was indeed a hypothesis I put forth, with the exception that I used the phrase "traditional gender roles". This is an undeniable fact (and in fact one put forth by feminists), so I'm not sure what is being argued. That being said, I also stated it might have to do with biology (so perhaps there was a mix-up during recollection, which would be understandable). Let's flesh this second thought out. First off, let's settle on definitions: one area I might differ with steveo is that I admit there is a patriarchy in our society, if such a thing is defined as males make the preponderance of the rules that govern society. Where I think I agree with steveo is that it is impossible to say whether a patriarchy is a good thing or a bad thing. Within the framework of a patriarchy is how our society has developed, and our society has been fairly successful in some areas, so to deny that patriarchy might have some benefits to society is to disregard our entire recent history and to assume our ancestors were generally bad people who wanted their daughters to live as second-class citizens because they disliked females. Instead of this hypothesis, I claimed that biology was what had caused this imbalance, as females had to spend a lot more time than males in raising children for the species to propagate (a tribe which didn't follow this route would likely be outcompeted). I think the major reason things have changed so much in the power dynamics between males and females has to do with the changing economy, the reduction in infant and post-partum mortality, and the use of birth control. I also believe that the power equilibrium is currently changing, though whether it will be 50/50 remains to be seen.

Quote
and that black people commit more crimes and are disproportionately shot and in jail because they idealize the thug life.

There are also people of other races who celebrate the thug life (shout out to Tupac), and I think those people are just as likely to commit more crimes as blacks who idealize that culture do. Now, is there some remnant of racism that causes an increase in these cultural behaviors?; perhaps, but I have yet to see the proof. Regardless, a side effect of increased criminality is that police may disproportionately apply more force due to being aware of the statistics and being protective. I've seen several videos of where the police were completely out of line shooting at a suspect (black and white alike), and I believe these cops should be charged with, at the very least, manslaughter (murder when it gets into planting evidence); to name some of the cases that appear to fit this category: Tamir Rice, Philando Castile, Levar Jones, Daniel Shaver. There are other cases where things aren't so clear, and in these I feel you need to give the police the benefit of the doubt (as we do for other professionals when circumstances don't allow for clear judgment either way). I think the best way to combat racial disparity in the use of police targeting or force is to try to ensure appropriate representation by race in non-elected government positions (elected positions should naturally be represented by race if we ensure fair voting). When I've worked alongside people of other races (or sexes for that matter), it has provided me the best ability to reduce stereotypes and realize the competence, potential, and general goodness of all people.

Cool Friend

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #497 on: March 06, 2019, 12:44:03 PM »


I was asked to invent a line to cross.  How do you answer that?  I have no idea what someone would need to say or do.  He crossed your line, that's ok.  But why can't I have a different view on the subject?

Of course you can have a different view of the subject.  But you are unable to think of any hypothetical word or action that would make someone racist.  This is tantamount to saying there is nothing a person can do or say that would make them racist.  You are entitled to your view.  It's just intellectually bankrupt.

Your conclusion is not logical.

It's not a "conclusion."  You have nothing to say on this matter.

Have a great day.

Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2512
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #498 on: March 06, 2019, 12:50:43 PM »
What conservatives don't seem to understand - if the present system is unequal/racist/sexist/whatever and you don't want the present system to change (ie, you want to "conserve it") then you are in fact condoning and enabling sexism/racism/etc. 

The white supremacists are not the problem.  YOU are.  The silent, comfortable center-right. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16041
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #499 on: March 06, 2019, 12:54:59 PM »
Quote
I find it sexist and racist to suggest

I'm curious how you define sexism and racism. There seems to be two views. I personally define both terms to imply a belief of superiority of a sex or race over another; since I don't feel this definition fairly characterizes me (or even other posters on this thread), I take it as a juvenile insult. However, I do posit there are some differences between sexes and races (when looking at statistics of the whole populations), and maybe this is the criteria you are using to judge me, the observation of differences.

Do you believe that a particular race has behavioral traits that are different from other races?