[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.817[View All]

File: 1563257634424.jpg (154.19 KB, 697x370, 697:370, What-Now.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Context: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/14/us/politics/trump-twitter-squad-congress.html

And: https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/7/15/20695427/donald-trump-tweet-racist-aoc-tlaib-omar-pressley-nationalism

For me, I'm genuinely surprised at the reaction to this. It's just Trump being Trump. There's nothing unique here that's any different than his long history of comments r.e. nationality and race.

Do you all think that this will change anything or lead to any repercussions? Or is it simply a news blip that will fade soonish?
55 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.975

>>974
>And it's still making a statement about SOMEONE's nature based on their race.
Huh?  Just knowing the mean or median violence level of a given set of people tells you nothing about the violence level of any particular person in that set.

 No.976

>>974
>They were directed at 4 non-white women. Context is important.
But would Trump have made the same statements even if they were white?  I think it is likely that he would have.

 No.977

>>819
Trump is a state agent.  When acting in a official capacity state agents are beyond reproach of individual humans, at least if they are properly respectful.  This line of reasoning can be used to, as you would say, deny the racism of Presidential tweets.  Oddly, I never see it said so clearly.  I think to many the logic is automatic, and they can't say this is why they respect Trump.  In someone not a state agent, the words might be offensive, but in the human world, if you want to remain a positive person, might must define right.

>>881
I think there is a bit of that.  A consensus racist believes everyone of one race is better than everyone of another.  A white supremacist, for example.  Someone who only hints at such things, or has only preferences in some cases, but never admits to believing full racial supremacy explicitly may not be seen as a racist by everyone.  Eg. Trump.

This thread goes on a long time.  OK, I'm done reading for now.  Take care, every randomly assigned animal.

 No.978

>>975
Just because someone would say similar things to white people doesn't mean they're not also racist.

Racists are generally assholes in other aspects of their life, such as Trump, so saying that "Theyre an asshole to everyone not just people of other races" is a completely moot point.

Being racist has nothing to do with how you treat people of your own race. Even White Supremacists treat other white people badly when it helps them to do so.

 No.979

>>976
But you cannot say for certain that he would have, because he has not.  Also this >>978. Saying it to a white person would still be bigoted, even if it's not specifically racist. We could change the accusation to a more general "Trump is a bigot", if that makes you feel better.


>>975
But that's ignoring the fact that the set of people is made up of people...

>>977
Being a "state agent" or working for the government does not make you beyond reproach. That's a ridiculous notion.

 No.981

>>979
Hmm...consider states have the authority to use power against humans at their pleasure -- to kill, jail, torture without consent of the subject.  Can this be justified except by admitting state agents to a higher moral plane than the individuals to who[m] these enforcements are applied?  Anyway, I find this logic works nicely to explain and justify society.

 No.983

>>981
>Can this be justified except by admitting state agents to a higher moral plane than the individuals to who[m] these enforcements are applied?
Yes: you can put the principal (the body politic treated collectively) on a separate moral plane while considering the agents to be normal humans who are simply tasked with executing the will of the principal as best they can.

 No.984

>>978
If Trump is an equal-opportunity asshole, treating everyone assholishly regardless of their race, then his assholish acts are not racist, because there is no discrimination based on race.

 No.985

>>981
I think I know who is speaking here, but I'll preserve anonymity as it is the spirit of this board.

Anyway, I don't agree with you on that. We grant power and authority to government agents and policing bodies, yes. But only to an extent. This does not make them infallible and there are supposed to be laws in place to prevent those people from abusing that power in such a way. And when that power is abused, we have a right, at least in the US, to protest the abuse of that power. Attempting to suppress that right is a crime.

>>983
And failing to execute that will or trying to use that position to abuse their power is not accepted. It is grounds to remove that person from that position.

 No.987

>>984
That's not true at all. If someone is an asshole, and he calls the white people he insults "morons" and he calls the black people he insults "niggers"... That's still being racist.

 No.988

>>979
>But you cannot say for certain that he would have, because he has not.  
And you can't say for certain that he wouldn't have.

>>979
>We could change the accusation to a more general "Trump is a bigot",
That would be more accurate.  He does seem bigoed against immigrants.  Or at the very least, he plays a bigot on TV.

>>979
>But that's ignoring the fact that the set of people is made up of people...
What do you mean?

 No.989

>>987
Hmm, I guess you're right.  But it is still the case that being an asshole in a way that doesn't involve race isn't evidence of racism.

 No.990

>>985
>who is speaking here
I don't try to be secretive.

>only to an extent
Yes.  I am not to tell a state to enforce more than it does, merely to respect enforcement.  Perhaps, I might ask, would a racist President be a threat to American government?  Is it possible to be a racist and a President separately somehow?  In America, the President is not held to be personally infallible, I agree, and criticism is not enforced against (free speech).  Yet somehow the state must remain as solid as any state.

 No.991

>>989
But it DID involve race. Just not implicitly. But like I said, context is important.

>>990
it is my personal opinion that the president should NOT be racist. Because it is expected of the president to govern all people and not give one group special treatment or give one group detrimental treatment based on their race, place of origin, sex or gender. To be a racist is to invite bias into your decision making, and I do not believe it is possible not to do so if you truly believe that some races are inferior to others.

 No.992

>>972
>I'm fairly certain most people mean it to mean "better" or "worse" in terms of intelligence, aptitude and/or capability. And also in terms of inherent demeanor or nature. Saying "blacks are more violent than whites" is racist, because it's making a statement about someone's nature based on their race.

I think those are fair observations to make and wouldn't meet my criteria for racism.  People are different and that's supposed to be okay.  What matters is how you treat people.  It becomes racist when you say "X race has a lower IQ, therefore they should not be given the same rights."

 No.995

File: 1563766647852.jpg (568.13 KB, 1224x1224, 1:1, 4ehdk4vb41xc.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>991
>But it DID involve race. Just not implicitly.
I have yet to see any evidence that a single word of what Trump said would have been different if the women were white instead of colored.

 No.996

>>992

>"X race has a lower IQ, therefore they should not be given the same rights."

That logic, in a vacuum, makes sense though, i don't quite understand that. I mean, that's the reason we age-gate so many critical rights, yea? Because children lack the mental capacity to properly handle the responsibility? It's no unreasonable that we do so...

So if, to use the existing example, black people actually were intellectually to children as white people are to adults. Wouldn't it actually be reasonable, under those circumstances, to deny them certain rights?

 No.997

>>992
There is a preponderance of evidence that there is no tangible link between race and intelligence/capability that cannot be explained by other outside factors not related to race. Moreover, the notion that some races are less intellegent is used by white supremacists to mask that their ideas are racist. They call it "race realism" and claim that it's just facts that blacks are less intelligent than whites and so on. It's not something you should be promoting or enforcing.

>>995
Why would he be telling white American women to "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came"? It would make no sense for him to do that. His comments only make sense if you factor in their race. He is saying they are not as American as whites because of their race.

>>996
No. Because 1) You can't prove that it's actually caused by race and not other outside factors. and 2) It's clearly not universal. There can be black geniuses as easy as there is white idiots. So to blanket deny certain black people the rights based on your preconceived idea of their intelligence is wrong. And keep in mind, that has already been done in the United States before. Blacks used to be barred from certain jobs because they were thought to be too dumb to work them. Until, you know, they were actually given the chance to work them and showed that it was wrong.

 No.998

>>997
>
No. Because 1) You can't prove that it's actually caused by race and not other outside factors. and 2) It's clearly not universal. There can be black geniuses as easy as there is white idiots. So to blanket deny certain black people the rights based on your preconceived idea of their intelligence is wrong. And keep in mind, that has already been done in the United States before. Blacks used to be barred from certain jobs because they were thought to be too dumb to work them. Until, you know, they were actually given the chance to work them and showed that it was wrong.

So wouldn't the same logic apply to children? There are savants out there who have the capacity of adults when they are very young, yet we deny them rights? How do you correct this inconsistancy? Give all children of any age all the rights? I generally agree that people largely hamfist the data into whatever form they want, and draw the most extreme conclusions based off the smallest of points, but i do want to know your answer to the children parallel.

 No.999

>>998
Are you suggesting that the occurrences of non-white geniuses (or even just at or above average intelligence) are as rare and extraordinary as children with the intelligence level of adults? Because if your not, you've answer your own question. Child geniuses are the exception to the rule in the vast number of cases. And in those cases, sometimes those children ARE allowed to do things their child peers are not. However, black people being intelligent on a level comparable to whites is NOT rare or extraordinary.

 No.1000

File: 1563768223565.png (11.92 KB, 377x512, 377:512, Lead_levels_children.png) ImgOps Google

>>996
>So if, to use the existing example, black people actually were intellectually to children as white people are to adults. Wouldn't it actually be reasonable, under those circumstances, to deny them certain rights?
In a hypothetical world where black the distribution of black IQs and white IQs have negligible overlap, and black IQs were so low that they were "intellectually to children as white people are to adults", yes, that could perhaps be justified.  

But in the real world, there is significant overlap between the distribution of black IQs and white IQs.  

 No.1001

File: 1563768624634.png (2.53 KB, 105x112, 15:16, doomface02.png) ImgOps Google

>>997
>There is a preponderance of evidence that there is no tangible link between race and intelligence/capability that cannot be explained by other outside factors not related to race.
That, as written, is obviously false.  Any factor that helps explain the intelligence gap between whites and blacks is, by definition, related to race.

 No.1002

>>999
I'm looking purely at concepts. I don't believe that, if there is actually some kind of capacity difference between the races, it has anything to do with the race itself, more wealth and opportunities, and social expectations that have been hisorically molded around catering to white people.  

I'm saying that, where that the case, which it is not, would it not be reasonable? My argument is that, by the same model as children, it would be. So in their logical progression of [black people  are dumber than white people]->[therefore they should have less rights], they're not wrong on the logic or the conclusion side, instead, they're just working with a false premise, thus any extrapolated data is crap.

>>1000
I know that. I'm trying to simply isolate the premise that [people with less mental capacity should have less rights] as not being inherently wrong, and as an example, citing children having less right, which is generally accepted without much question by the same logic, thereby corroborating only the justifying logic in and of itself. We need to isolate these points, because it seems nobody is understanding my point as is, and thus i'm trying to isolate the very basic logic from the many complicated, multifaceted elements of the discussion. OK?

 No.1003

>>1001
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. What I meant was, there is evidence to suggest that things unrelated to race, such as income, living conditions, geography and even access to healthy food, can affect IQ scores. None of those things are related directly to race. But if a higher percentage of a certain race have less income, less access to healthy food, etc, then that could (and in all likelyhood does) skew the results of IQ tests in a way that makes any attempt to use them to say anything about racial groups dubious.

>>1002
If it were true, and you could prove it were true beyond the shadow of a doubt, then it would be reasonable. Reasonable, but not unquestioningly so. Like I mentioned, the same rationale was used to supress black rights in the past.

But it isn't true, so there's no point in discussing that hypothetical.

 No.1006

>>1003

> so there's no point in discussing that hypothetical.

I don't think it's pointless. It shows exactly where the problem is. With a faulty premise. not faulty logic.

 No.1007

>>1006
I suppose. But it felt to me like, that was always the obvious flaw in most "race realism" arguments. That they are founded on faulty premises that are looking for evidence that supports a specific conclusion, rather than trying to find the correct conclusion based on the evidence.

 No.1008

File: 1563772096107.jpg (58.66 KB, 728x545, 728:545, Income-by-race.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>1003
>things unrelated to race, such as income
In what sense is race unrelated to income?  If you look at the statistical data, there certainly seems to be a relationship.

>>1003
>But if a higher percentage of a certain race have less income, less access to healthy food, etc, then that could (and in all likelyhood does) skew the results of IQ tests in a way that makes any attempt to use them to say anything about racial groups dubious.
If the mean IQ of African Americans is lower than that of white Americans due to malnutrition, lead poisoning, or various other environmental factors, that is still a non-dubious thing that can be said of the racial groups.  What would be dubious is attributing it to genetic factors.

 No.1012

>>996

I think age-gating is done for a variety of reasons other than intelligence, and some times it's just done for poor reasons.  As an example, younger people aren't allowed to vote not because they'll somehow vote poorly, but because they're very likely to be heavily influenced by their family to vote in a certain way.  Similarly, having sex with children is against the law not because the children make poor choices about it or because their bodies aren't capable, but because there's too heavy a possibility that an adult uses their position of power as an adult to coerce them.  This is actually the reason it's so frowned upon for a teacher to date a student even when they're well into college, or why relationships with your boss at work aren't okay.

So even in the very unlikely chance that black people were proven to be somehow childlike in intelligence, which seems demonstrably untrue anyway, I don't think it would stand to reason that they'd be denied rights.

>>997

That's a very good point!  And I think it's very fair to say that the studies performed to determine average IQ based on race just aren't valid studies, or even that IQ as a metric isn't useful to begin with.  It's certainly possible that these studies were only carried out in the first place in order for racists to prove a point.

But the studies themselves are out there and referring to them isn't racist on its own, even if you feel you can disprove their results.  If someone is misled by statistics that you feel are faulty, then it would be great of you to point out why these studies aren't as valid as they claim to be.  But simply coming to a false conclusion in your science because you forgot to factor in certain data points isn't racist, it's just normal wrong.

 No.1013

>>1008
The reason why there's a discrepancy is because of societal issues, not genetic ones.

> What would be dubious is attributing it to genetic factors.

Which is often the next step people who use IQ scores to justify racism take. They ignore all other possible explanations for it except genetic ones. Which is a dubious claim to make.

 No.1022

>>1013
>Which is often the next step people who use IQ scores to justify racism take.
Hypothetically, if the lower mean IQ of the African-American population was due in significant part to genetic factors, would that "justify racism"?

 No.1023

>>1022
I don't think so, not entirely. We just had that discussion, though. And I answered it pretty thoroughly in
>>999 and >>997

 No.1025

I've got to say that I'm having an extremely hard time understanding the argument of "X individual/group has a lower IQ than the majority, therefore X deserves to have only a fraction of the civil rights allowed to the majority."

The case of children gets put forth. But that doesn't connect at all. Children DO have civil rights. This is an issue that's been debated for literally centuries, and there are a wide variety of international laws as well as domestic laws in the U.S. that view children as free agents deserving independent rights. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_rights

As has been pointed out before, the exceptions where restrictions are widely supported are ones where it's thought that children could be subject to serious harm. And the source of said harm (whether alcohol, cigarettes, etc) must be kept away from children. It's not a matter of punishing them damn stupid kids because they're inferior to us intelligent adults.

 No.1028

File: 1563886352366.png (209.72 KB, 400x400, 1:1, 7bd.png) ImgOps Google

>>1025
>I've got to say that I'm having an extremely hard time understanding the argument of "X individual/group has a lower IQ than the majority, therefore X deserves to have only a fraction of the civil rights allowed to the majority."
Has anyone made that argument in this thread?  I thought the talk here was about political rights, specifically the right to vote.

 No.1029

>>1025
>I've got to say that I'm having an extremely hard time understanding the argument of "X individual/group has a lower IQ than the majority, therefore X deserves to have only a fraction of the civil rights allowed to the majority."
Has anyone made that argument in this thread?  I thought the talk here was about political rights, specifically the right to vote.

 No.1030

>>1022

I at least implied earlier that I would say it doesn't.  Even if one race was demonstrably "inferior" to another in some way they're still human and should be afforded the same rights as others.  Society doesn't really benefit by cutting people out of it.

 No.1031

File: 1563905651702.png (64.43 KB, 580x551, 20:19, 26002__suggestive_blushing….png) ImgOps Google

>>1029

To follow up, in case there's any confusion, I would say this for both civil and political rights.  "Inferior" races should still be completely and fully equal in the eyes of the state, and ideally in the eyes of everyone.

 No.1035

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/23/ocasio-cortez-omar-tlaib-pressley-favorable-rating-poll/1802284001/

"Many political observers believe it is part of a deliberate strategy to make the four women – who hail from their party's progressive wing and whose views critics say are left of the political mainstream – the face of the Democratic Party."

 No.1047

>>1035
Deliberate strategy from the Republican side? To what end?

 No.1048

>>1047
Possibly to eat up the middle-ground voters. If the democratic moves demonstrably left, more moderates will side republican, in theory at least. Personally, i do think playing the middle would be a strong move right now. The only reason that doesn't happen is because the primary system pretty much forbids moderates from getting that far.

 No.1049

>>1048

The problem with that is Trump is presenting himself as extremely right, not a moderate.

 No.1050

r.e. independents, it looks like they dislike both sides and are pretty set in their ways about that

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/22/743516166/npr-newshour-marist-poll-americans-not-sold-on-trump-or-democrats

"Among independents, a third said they would definitely vote for the president, up from one quarter. A majority — 54% — say they definitely won't, about the same as last month."

"And with all-important independents, more (48%) think Democrats would take the country in the wrong direction than the right one (40%)."

As far as I can tell, the Trump strategy is to utterly reject appealing to independents and any hope of getting Democrats to crossover-- it's all about making Republicans as angry as humanly possible and to drive every last one of them to the voting booth.

The whole thing is kind of sad since if some hypothetical John Smith random dude appeared with both center-left social beliefs (more background checks for guns, stopping the war on drugs, banning anti-LGBT discrimination, etc) and center-right economic beliefs (more border security, keeping regulations low, etc)... he could probably win by a landslide with both all independents and shitloads of Republican defectors as well as Democratic defectors.

Two-party system is a bitch that's not going anywhere, though.

 No.1053

>>1050
>more background checks for guns
One of the few things that could cause me to vote for Trump is the Democratic nominee being strongly anti-gun.  I hope whoever the Dems nominate next year has more respect for the Second Amendment than Hillary did.

 No.1054

>>1053
Well, wanting "more background checks for (the purchase of) guns" is NOT being anti-gun. It's actually being pro-gun, because it wants to ensure that responsible people can still legally purchase guns while keeping them out of the hands of dangerous people.

 No.1055

>>1054
>Well, wanting "more background checks for (the purchase of) guns" is NOT being anti-gun.
Depends on the nature of the required background checks.  I've seen some proposals where the requirements were absolutely onerous and unreasonable.

 No.1056

>>1055
Do you have any examples? All the proposed limitations on the purchase of guns I've heard have all been not only reasonable, but logical as well.

 No.1058


 No.1059

>>1058
Is there anything in particular in this bill you found unreasonable?

Also, this article seems to be paraphrasing and making a lot of assumptions in some cases. I'll have to take a look at the bill's actual text later.

 No.1061

>>1059
>Is there anything in particular in this bill you found unreasonable?
Yes.  I share basically all of David Kopel's objections.

 No.1062

>>1061
Well I'm reading the article, and I can already tell it's quite hostile towards any kind of gun legislation.

Like, for example, this article claims that the purposed bill "requires almost all firearms sales and loans to be conducted by a federally-licensed dealer." Since I haven't had time to read to original bill, we'll have to that that as being true for the sake of argument. Since federal law prohibits licensed dealers from transferring handguns to persons under 21 years (again, something the article SAYS that we will have to assume truthful for the sake of argument) this would prevent people under 21 from purchasing handguns.

Even if this were true, this article choose to characterize this fact as "This is a clever way to enact a handgun ban indirectly." That's not a fair assessment of what is proposed, even if all the above statements were factually correct. That is assuming intentional deceit on the part of the bill and the people who drafted it, rather than it being an oversight, or even an intentional inclusion. Furthermore, characterizing this as "a handgun ban" is also inaccurate. Handguns would not be banned. People above 21 could still legally purchase handguns.

 No.1066

>>1062
>Furthermore, characterizing this as "a handgun ban" is also inaccurate. Handguns would not be banned. People above 21 could still legally purchase handguns.
From context, it's clear that he meant a "a handgun ban for under-21-year-olds", not "a handgun ban for all civilians".

>That is assuming intentional deceit on the part of the bill and the people who drafted it, rather than it being an oversight, or even an intentional inclusion.
Regardless of the drafters' intent,  the point remains that the bill does more than just keep guns of the hands of dangerous people who would fail a background check.  And that's a major reason why people oppose such laws.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]