[ 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[Last 50 Posts]

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?

 No.818

I don't think there will be any consequences immediately, as always.

But I'm always unhappy that racial attacks are getting normalized in politics. So if we get more Trump-like presidents, it might become the norm and this is never good.

 No.819

>>817
I was actually considering making a thread about this very topic.

Yes, it's Trump being Trump. Trump is a racist, Trump is a bigot, Trump is an asshole. We know these things. But there are still people out there who deny it. Who argue semantics and legal definitions when you accuse Trump of racism or bigotry. They are out there, and they make excuses for his behavior. Because he justifies their own racism, xenophobia and bigotry. Because they know that being called a "racist" is worse than actually holding racist views. And they are still denying it. Which means, even though we know Trump is a racist, a bigot and an asshole, we still have to call him out every time he does something like this. To make it harder to ignore, harder to justify and harder to excuse by his base.

 No.822

P.S. You should really put a brief summary of the topic in the OP along with your sources, so that everyone is on the same page. Especially since one of them has a limited access to non-members.

Summary: Trump recently tweeted that four non-white Congresswomen should "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came". Despite the fact that all four are American citizens, and all but one were born in the United States.

 No.824

>>817
>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?

As a Republican he's expected to not like Democrats and call them out, so that's already a baseline.  As Trump he's also expected to be at least a little bit racist, and even if this was really explicitly and stereotypically awful, literally "Go back to your own country.", I don't think this is anything new enough to change anything.  There are probably a few voters for which this does cross the line and they're going to switch away from Trump now, and maybe that's all it'll take come 2020, but it's still very slight even if all that's needed is something very slight.

 No.842

>>818
> if we get more Trump-like presidents

We almost certainly will. The Republican party has moved the baseline so far to the right, that nothing short of someone like Trump can get them any votes. Trump's not an anomaly, it's been a steady path towards this for years now.

>>824
I honestly do not think there is anyone who is still on the fence about Trump at this point. Although, I'm not really sure how many people were truly "on the fence" to begin with. It's not like any of this has been a secret.

 No.843

>>822
I retrospect, I really should have. Sorry about that.

 No.846

>>842
>We almost certainly will. The Republican party has moved the baseline so far to the right, that nothing short of someone like Trump can get them any votes. Trump's not an anomaly, it's been a steady path towards this for years now.

Yeah, it's genuinely hard to imagine somebody worse than Trump... but it's going to probably happen at some point. Trump, at least, couches all his white nationalist type talk with all variety of BS noodling in his rhetoric. "I'm not a racist, but..." is the name of the game. America is kind of poised for an outright George Wallace type figure now.

 No.871

>>842
>I honestly do not think there is anyone who is still on the fence about Trump at this point
I am still undecided who I will vote for in 2020.  I really don't want to vote for Trump.  But if the Democrats nominate someone really terrible or someone who is objectively unqualified such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, then I might vote for Trump.

 No.872

A bit of an update...

So, it looks like calling specifically for the black congresswoman to go back to Africa is going to become a full campaign thing, with Trump expecting to pump up his crowds with it.

Link: https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/pajnqv/trump-rallies-have-a-brand-new-racist-chant-send-her-back

I'm not surprised since this is still Trump being Trump, but I guess that it does represent a hardening of the white straight Christian identity politics that he's so obsessed with.

 No.873

>>872
>“Omar minimized the September 11 attacks on our homeland by saying ‘some people did something,’” Trump told the crowd.
Is this out of context or did Trump really say this non-sequitur?

 No.874


 No.875

>>872
I know it will never happen, but I worry sometimes how the public would react should Trump announce that he is taking steps to get these women deported by force.

 No.876

>>872

He is absolutely doubling down on the racism/nationalism.  Which makes sense, in a way, because all the other stuff he was running on last time...didn't pan out.  But the racism was really popular, so I guess it's just racism o'clock now.  I don't think it can be a debated thing this time around, there aren't going to be reasons to vote for this failure other than nationalism.

 No.877

Let me tell you, I absolutely loathe that so many people this day and age are cheering him on.

It's a solid reminder how hateful society has become.

 No.878

>>877
So you're saying that you hate other people's hate?

 No.879

>>876
>>877
I know, and what's even worse is that a lot of people don't even consider him racist.

I've had discussions with people that refused to aknowledge the fact that donald trump is even remotely racist.

It's like we're living in seperate realities.

 No.880

>>877
It's true that his base eats this stuff up. If it makes you feel any better, he's still fundamentally disliked by the clear majority of Americans, especially in recent polls. Last one that I've seen has him at 41% only.

Link: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-poll/republican-support-for-trump-rises-after-racially-charged-tweets-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKCN1UB2UD

 No.881

>>879
>I've had discussions with people that refused to aknowledge the fact that donald trump is even remotely racist.
>It's like we're living in seperate realities
Or maybe just using differing definitions of the word "racist" and/or differing in interpretations of Trump's actions?  Trump is certainly anti-immigrant, and he uses sleazy attacks against people who criticize him.  But I have doubts whether he does in fact want to discriminate against other races.  If the media identifies these 4 Congresscritters as Trump's most liberal opposition, it's no surprise that Trump attacks them in a sleazy and factually inaccurate manner regardless of their race.  If one of them was a white immigrant from Sweden, he'd probably do the same, maybe even say "börk börk börk" to poke fun at him/her.

 No.882

>>880
Yeah, but he was scheduled to lose in 2016 as well. Statistics by certain media do not portray the situation well.

Also, it's not only an American thing. I saw an article here on Trump's tweets and some politicologist commenting on it and the comment section was full of people wishing our government would man up like Trump does and take..
borderline genocidal actions against "immigrants".
And like 20 years ago everyone was very abhorrent against that sort of thing.

 No.883

>>871
>>878
>>881
Okay, look...

If you've got a definition of the word "racist" where telling a black American woman to go back to Africa isn't "racist", then literally nothing is racist. Literally nothing. At all.

I'm straining to understand what living in your kind of separate reality is like, and I can't even begin to understand it.

If an employer did to an employee what Trump did, then said employer would be sued for illegal racial discrimination and would lose. This isn't a matter of opinion. It's literally a matter of law.

See: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/eeoc-go-back-where-you-came-from-discrimination-federal-law-trump-tweets/

 No.884

>>883
>If an employer did to an employee what Trump did, then said employer would be sued for illegal racial discrimination and would lose. This isn't a matter of opinion. It's literally a matter of law.
>See: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/eeoc-go-back-where-you-came-from-discrimination-federal-law-trump-tweets/
The linked page says that that it constitutes illegal  "harassment based on national origin", not racial discrimination.

 No.885

>>883
>If you've got a definition of the word "racist" where telling a black American woman to go back to Africa isn't "racist", then literally nothing is racist. Literally nothing. At all.
Posting a job advertisement that says "blacks need not apply" is racist.  Telling a naturalized American citizen to go back to her country of origin if she dislikes America so much is not racist -- it applies just as well to a white immigrant from Sweden as a black immigrant from Somali.  

 No.886

>>885
It doesn't, though, because the congresspeople (who are all but one born in america, yes) are racialized as unruly, a white swedish immigrant would never be asked to go home to their own country, because their 'race' is not considered one that is problematic to sovereign power, therefore it is never racialized in this way.

What you have to understand about race as a social construct in the public eye, is that it is not based on any useful biological categories or distinctions, and neither does it draw meaningfully from roots to ethnic societies or populations.

Even one distant african ancestor that introduces just the hint of an african american phenotype, is enough for a person to be racialized as black, but no matter the amount of ancestry you have from the dominican republic or Ireland, you are just considered white. These are not meaningful categories, they're constructed politically to designate which people's are considered to be unruly or problematic to sovereign power.

If you upset the system, you become a racial category, until you calm down, and get in line.

Currently, mexicans and latin american immigrants, as well as Muslims, Africans, Asian peoples, and to some extent Semitic peoples, are considered unruly, and a problem to the stability of liberal society, and as such have been racialized in to cohesive categories in order to control them.

Race is a folk taxonomy. It's created in the eyes of the people, usually with the aid of sovereign power, in a motivated act of population control, and not with any biological construct in mind. In this sense, the category of latin american or foreign national from a country percieved to be unstable, is just as important of a racial category as any other, since in the eyes of the people, it will be viewed as having racial significance, which is all that matters, when every racial category we've ever had, hasn't been taxonomically significant.

Swede is not a race, if it's not a 'problem'. therefore a swede is just white. Whereas Irish people were considered a really shitty race, when thousands of poor Irish immigrants arrived on the shores of the united states, and the prospect of maybe having to take care of them dawned. And now that they're properly integrated and their country has recovered economically, well, they're just white again.

 No.887

>>885
And yet individuals perceived as 'white' aren't told to go back to their ancestral country of origin as an insult.

It's only if you're seen as 'black', 'brown', etc that said rhetoric happens. And it happens regardless of whether or not you're a native U.S. citizen. It's just because of who are you as an ideological category.

Funny, isn't it?

Same kind of funny as how immigration (even illegal migration) from 'white' countries brings about no political controversy whatsoever, particularly among Trump (he's 100% pro-immigration if you're from the 'right' place) and his supporters. Come from someplace being of the 'wrong' racial category, though, and you wind up in an interment camp forcibly separated from your children.

Again... you're living in a separate reality that bears little to no relationship with what I'm seeing.

It's as if I as an LGBT person am walking down the street, somebody screams out "I hope that you get AIDS!", and I hear people going "Well, clearly it's not a homophobic comment since straight people frequently get the disease too." Come on. Context matters.

 No.888

>>887
>Same kind of funny as how immigration (even illegal migration) from 'white' countries brings about no political controversy whatsoever, particularly among Trump (he's 100% pro-immigration if you're from the 'right' place) and his supporters. Come from someplace being of the 'wrong' racial category, though, and you wind up in an interment camp forcibly separated from your children.

>It's as if I as an LGBT person am walking down the street, somebody screams out "I hope that you get AIDS!", and I hear people going "Well, clearly it's not a homophobic comment since straight people frequently get the disease too." Come on. Context matters

Preach, fam

 No.889

File: 1563542000424.jpg (142.47 KB, 1200x900, 4:3, ted-cruz-rcmp-leaf-flag.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>887
>Same kind of funny as how immigration (even illegal migration) from 'white' countries brings about no political controversy whatsoever, particularly among Trump (he's 100% pro-immigration if you're from the 'right' place) and his supporters.
Remember when Trump attacked Ted Cruz on the basis of being born in Canada?
https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/22/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-canadian-prime-minister/index.html
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/donald-trump-ted-cruz-canada-222347

>And yet individuals perceived as 'white' aren't told to go back to their ancestral country of origin as an insult.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/01/15/go-back-to-canada-ted-cruz-told-for-sneering-at-new-york-values.html

 No.890

>>889
Okay, I have to admit. It's honestly amazing that he manages to be this disrespectful around the board, I didn't know he also did this to white dudes. But one slight does not make up for another.

I think this doesn't help Trump's Case, at all. He seems to be employing a hypernationalistic rhetoical framework, but we know this is frequently associated with Racism, so that shouldn't actually be so surprising, now that I think about it. The two rhetorical strategies are most often co-occuring in political candidate.¨

 No.892

>>890
>I think this doesn't help Trump's Case, at all.
Oh, just to be clear, I'm not trying to say that orange man isn't bad.  Trump is a lying sack of shit who has no business being the chief executive officer of the country.  He is a national embarrassment.  But is he racist?  It's not clear whether he is.  

 No.896

>>892
I meeaan, it doesn't help the case, that he isn't a racist.

And I can't believe, you or anyone else is even unclear on this.

I have to know, what does it require for someone to be percieved as a racist in your head? What more does it take, than what Trump does?

 No.901

>>890
Nationalism is basically his platform though, and on some level, it's hard for me to disagree too heavily with the overall sentiment. America has done a shit job taking care of it's own people these last few years. Granted, trump's blatant pandering to giant corporations isn't helping things, but the overall concept of america taking care of it's own before acting as international babysitter is one i can get behind.

 No.903

>>890
I would like to point out that we can't be certain that Trump's attacks on Ted Cruz were not motivated by Cruz's Cuban heritage, and thus could still be racist in nature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz#Early_life_and_family

 No.904

File: 1563672488782.png (298.21 KB, 500x500, 1:1, marshmallowiest-pony.png) ImgOps Google

>>903
>we can't be certain that Trump's attacks on Ted Cruz were not motivated by Cruz's Cuban heritage, and thus could still be racist in nature.
Even assuming arguendo that Hispanic is a race, I don't see how that works.  Trump attacked Cruz on the basis of Cruz being born in Canada.  What does that have to do with Cuba?  And in terms of what motivated it, the answer is obvious: Trump was competing against against Cruz in the primary and he'd use whatever sleazy tactics he thought would work best to get voters to vote for himself instead of Cruz.

 No.907

>>904
The nature of his attack and the motivation for it don't have to be connected. Just because the nature of of the attack was surrounding his being born in Canada, you cannot rule out the possibility that it was motivated by his ethnicity. I mean, considering the fact that the people Trump just told to "go back to their own country" were all American citizens and all but one were born here, it's can be assumed that Trump's motivations for telling people to go back where they came from do not have to be related to their actual place of origin.

In other words, Trump appears to attack ALL minority people with "go back where you came from", regardless of where they actually came from relative to their current location. So considering that Cruz could be considered a minority by some because of his Cuban heritage, we cannot rule that out as the motivation for saying it to him. So using it as "proof" Trump isn't racist doesn't work. You can not say, definitively, that Trump saying that to Cruz was NOT racially motivated. You can claim it's unlikely, but you cannot say it with complete certainty.

 No.908

>>907
>you cannot rule out the possibility that it was motivated by his ethnicity
Only in the same sense that you can't rule out that it was motivated by a belief that Cruz was actually the Zodiac Killer.  Beyond a reasonable a doubt, it was motivated by (1) a desire to cause voters to vote for himself instead of Cruz and (2) a belief that it would do so.

>the people Trump just told to "go back to their own country" were all American citizens and all but one were born here
Well yeah, if I watched a Trump rally and took a shot each time he said something that basic fact-checking would disprove, I'd die of alcohol poisoning.  Trump apparently wants his base to believe that those politicians have stronger ties to the countries that their parents immigrated from than they do to America.  The sad part is that his base falls for it hook, line, and sinker.

>So using it as "proof" Trump isn't racist doesn't work.
Oh, I never claimed that it was proof that Trump wasn't racist in general.  I just used it to demonstrate that the argument "If Trump tells a person to go back to their home country, and that person is a member of racial minority, then Trump is being racist" is unsound.

 No.909

>>908
But... why argue that if you believe Trump is racist?

 No.910

File: 1563683124077.jpg (162.4 KB, 818x818, 1:1, 1459302901121.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>909
Well, I don't believe that Trump is racist.  He certainly was racist in the 1970s when he connived to avoid renting his apartments to blacks.  Back then, having blacks in a building lowered its value because lots of potential white renters were racist.  And given the choice between doing the right thing and making an extra buck, we all know what Trump chooses.  But nowadays I'm not sure if Trump is still racist.

And even if I did believe that Trump is racist, if an argument is invalid, it is still worthwhile pointing out that it is invalid even if its conclusion is true.

 No.912

>>910

That leads me to an interesting question...
Is it "racist" to act in a way that disadvantages certain races, but if it's not motivated by dislike of that race? For instance, i could see banks and landlords being in a position where they'd make more money not making their services available to black people, but for purely economic reasons, you know? Just because it makes more money, not because they personally have any problem with black people.

 No.913

>>910
What would lead you to believe he isn't racist anymore, given the things he says and the rhetoric he uses? What about his behavior suggests it is an ideology he has left behind?

 No.915

>>912
Part of the trouble is that "racism" has multiple definitions.  Merriam-Webster gives the following definitions:

>1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
>2a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
>2b : a political or social system founded on racism
>3 : racial prejudice or discrimination

So in your example, I'd say that the banker isn't racist in senses 1 or 2, but that he is being racist in sense 3 (racial discrimination) while committing those acts of racial discrimination.

 No.916

>>913
>What would lead you to believe he isn't racist anymore
Because being racist isn't good for business anymore.  

>the things he says and the rhetoric he uses?
I see those things as anti-immigrant (and especially anti-illegal-immigrant), not racist.

>What about his behavior suggests it is an ideology he has left behind?
I'm not convinced that Trump ever subscribed to racism as an ideology.  When being racist helped him make money, he was racist.  When being racist loses him money, he isn't racist.

 No.917

>>915
>multiple definitions.
Ah yes, the Achilles heel of modern discourse!

 No.918

>>916
But being racist isn't bad for business. Not HIS business, which is right now, appealing to far right Republicans. Racism is working very well for him, in that regard. His followers were chanting "Send them back!" in the wake of the topic of this very thread and ignoring the fact that they are from here.

Also I don't agree with the notion that his racism was only motivated by financial reasons. There are a lot more instances of him acting and speaking in a way that would be considered racist by most than the one you outlined in >>910.

 No.919

>>871
How is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez more unqualified than Trump is? I'm also confused as to what you think makes her unqualified. Could you explain your reasoning?

 No.920

>>918
>But being racist isn't bad for business. Not HIS business
I'm fairly certain that Trump would lose the general election if he made racial discrimination an official part of his campaign.  And I'm fairly certain that he knows this too.

>>919
She is under 35 years old.  

 No.921

>>920
Ahh, I see. I supposed that is a legitimate disqualification. But she is not running for President in this election, as she is not eligible to do so. When she reaches the appropriate age, I do hope she runs, though.


>I'm fairly certain that if Trump would lose the general election if he made racial discrimination an official part of his campaign.

Leaving Trump out of the conversation for a moment, racists are savvy enough to know that they should not blatantly come out with their ideology because people will reject it. So they've gotten good at hiding their true intentions with coded language and rhetoric. Not ever racist wears a Klan hood and shouts "white power". So I don't think it's fair to say that a racist could not win an election for President. Just because they don't come out and openly support racial discrimination in their campaign does not mean they do not hold racist ideals or opinions. Simply knowing that being an open racists will lose you votes does not mean you're suddenly not a racist.

 No.922

>>901
Okay, so essentially you dodged the question of what you think it takes for someone to be racist, and the impression I'm getting is, the reason why you think Trump is not racist is because you like him?

Can I also just mention, that nationalism has nothing to do with taking care of the people? It's propagandistic in nature, and nationalist leaders will use rhetorical strategies that place the focus on the people, but the goal of a nationalist is to promote the welfare of the nation, above that of anything else, and that includes above that of the people, actually.

You'll notice that no politican ever has said something, that sounded like a bad idea. They all say things that slide in pretty easily.

Trump claims to put america first, and the impression one gets is that the american people are what he means. But then you see the policies and ways that trump acts, and you realize that the nationalistic poopulist front is just that, a front, as nationalist populist ideologies invariably are.

 No.923

>>922
>Okay, so essentially you dodged the question of what you think it takes for someone to be racist, and the impression I'm getting is, the reason why you think Trump is not racist is because you like him?

I don't like trump at all. I think he conducts himself like a total ass, his economic policy largely encourages oligarchy, and his blatant anti-environmental policies are short-sighted, and i don't think he believes half the things he says.

I think in order to tell whether or not trump is a racist, we need to define racism. I thin he does things that could certainly be detrimental to minorities, and i think he panders to racists. I think he does this because it's the best way to amass power, and not out of any genuine personal hatred for minorities.

>Can I also just mention, that nationalism has nothing to do with taking care of the people? It's propagandistic in nature, and nationalist leaders will use rhetorical strategies that place the focus on the people, but the goal of a nationalist is to promote the welfare of the nation, above that of anything else, and that includes above that of the people, actually.

Isn't a nation mostly defined by it's people? So if you're helping a nation, aren't you helping it's people? I could see an argument of how that isn't the case i suppose. If it's just a nation's government. Depends on what you define as "the nation" i guess.

>You'll notice that no politican ever has said something, that sounded like a bad idea. They all say things that slide in pretty easily.

Fair enough. That's politics.

>Trump claims to put america first, and the impression one gets is that the american people are what he means. But then you see the policies and ways that trump acts, and you realize that the nationalistic poopulist front is just that, a front, as nationalist populist ideologies invariably are.

Yea, i mean, he just seems like a corporate puppet to me. My only point was that prioritizing america's own poor, and otherwise getting our own house in order, before going on an imperialist tirade or compromising to the whims of countries that don't give a damn about us, or worse, actively despise us, doesn't seem like a terrible idea to me. I don't think trump gives a shit about that at all, but i personally think it makes sense to raise the standard of the poor people living here than it does to take in millions more people we don't have the resources to take care of, or to try and take care of people across the sea. If we could, we should, but i don't think we realistically can. The ultra wealthy avoid paying taxes, the poor don't have anything to tax, and the middle class is shrinking as a result of having to take on basically the entire economic burden. Where exactly is all the money to help millions of new immigrants immigrate and properly integrate going to come from? Where is the money to help poor people in the middle east suppose to come from? The middle class is the wick of an economic time bomb. We're burning through it fast, and the moment it's not there anymore, the whole thing falls apart. All i'm saying is our eyes can't be bigger than our pockets here.

 No.925

>>923
>I think in order to tell whether or not trump is a racist, we need to define racism. I thin he does things that could certainly be detrimental to minorities, and i think he panders to racists. I think he does this because it's the best way to amass power, and not out of any genuine personal hatred for minorities.
This is fair, but don't you have a personal conception of the notion?

I'm personally fond of the idea that racism is a way for sovereign power to divide populations and make unruly elements vulnerable to control, and that racism is the process of division, making vulnerable and subjugating, but you don't have to follow my personal view of what racism is in order to realize, that Donald trump is racist by any metric.

If I accept the idea that a racist is not simply someone who actively contributes to this process, and that in order for a racist to be a racist, they must hold a personal belief that some races are inferior to others, Donald Trump would still be a racist, by virtue of everyone being a racist under this definition.

Psychological studies have repeatedly shown that everyone has implicit racial biases, (https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-08950-006), that these racial biases do translate to differential treatment, (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103100914707) and these effects are really hard to account for with familiarity effects and similar confounds (https://guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/soco.19.2.97.20706).

 No.964

>>925
> in order for a racist to be a racist, they must hold a personal belief that some races are inferior to others, Donald Trump would still be a racist, by virtue of everyone being a racist under this definition.
Eh?  How do you define the relation "is inferior to" as applied to races?

>>925
>Psychological studies have repeatedly shown that everyone has implicit racial biases
Yes, that's true, but it doesn't mean that people believe that one race is inferior to another race, for any reasonable definitions of "inferior".  People can simply be favoring their own "tribe".  I remember seeing a study showing whites have implicit negative bias against blacks but that sports-team affiliation overpowered the racial effect.

 No.965

>>964
>Eh?  How do you define the relation "is inferior to" as applied to races?
I suppose any sort of implicit or explicit bias in the direction of a race, considering a race better or worse in any way, this would be considered placing the races in a some sorts of hierarchies, and as such, making judgements about inferiority or superiority.

Whether it's explicit or implicit bias, I think this isn't so important, even a subconscious racist, would still be a racist in their subconscious, and this would reflect on their thought patterns and actions.

Notice I posted a study that shows they aren't accounted for by familiarity effects. That seems to suggest something about this being driven specifically by race, and yes, that could also have an underlying tribal component, but racism driven by a tribal instinct is still racism, so this seems sort of like an interesting observation but it doesn't immediately change anything in regard to the topic. But feel free to post the study about sports teams if you can find it.

 No.966

File: 1563736756838.jpg (90.04 KB, 847x944, 847:944, Ōmuro Sakurako.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>965
>I suppose ... considering a race better or worse in any way
Well, some races are better than others in some ways and worse in others.  E.g., blacks have skin that is better optimized for avoiding sunburn but less efficient in obtaining vitamin D, and whites have skin that is better optimized for obtaining vitamin D in places with low amounts of sun light but are more susceptible to sunburn.

 No.968

>>966
That's very true.

 No.972

>>966
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.

Trump's comments were racist because they imply that people of color are somehow "less" American and/or less deserving of being considered American based on their race or place of origin. There are people out there who believe that non-white Americans are somehow not as American as white Americans. Which is a racist notion.

 No.973

>>972
>Saying "blacks are more violent than whites" is racist, because it's making a statement about someone's nature based on their race.
Hmm, I guess there is some ambiguity in the sentence "blacks are more violent than whites".  It might be interpreted as "all blacks are more violent than all whites", or it might (more plausibly) be interpreted as "the average or median violence of blacks (in a given country or other population) is greater than that of whites (in the same population)".  In the latter interpretation, it is not making a statement about someone's nature based on their race, but only making a population-level comparison.

>>972
>Trump's comments were racist because they imply that people of color are somehow "less" American and/or less deserving of being considered American based on their race or place of origin.
I don't think Trump's statements involved race at all?

 No.974

>>973
It's still a racist statement if you can't prove that such statistics were not skewed by factors other than a person's race. And it's still making a statement about SOMEONE's nature based on their race. Populations are made of individuals.


>I don't think Trump's statements involved race at all?

They were directed at 4 non-white women. Context is important.

 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 ]