Your arguments always boils down to some version of: "What he REALLY meant was..." No reasonable person accepts this type of reasoning on such an important topic.
I definitely see where you're coming from here, as one of the most obnoxious and damaging aspects of the current political discourse is the tendency to try to "mind read" and guess at the real - and inevitably sinister - motives and beliefs of someone one disagrees with, who's actually saying something completely different. Deliberate and misleading smears of other peoples' positions to try to convince the audience they said something they didn't is a real problem. And the left seems much more willing to do this in recent years.
On the other hand though, you do have to recognize that there is a long history of right-wing politicians using dog whistles, to "say it without saying it" and signal to the base. That complicates matters significantly. I do think Trump has used that tactic on a few occasions.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
You're just making stuff up now. Which really proves my point. Your laundry list of synonyms for racism is....not a laundry list of synonyms for racism. It's important to understand the deliberately inflammatory nature of a world like "racist". If you need to be so mushy and imprecise with your labels, just to justify your inflammatory claims, then you are arguing against yourself. Your arguments always boils down to some version of: "What he REALLY meant was..."
No reasonable person accepts this type of reasoning on such an important topic. I'm disappointed that so many people fell into the trap of the narrative, but I'm not surprised.
(Incidentally, this type of reasoning is the entire basis for so much of the nonsense out of the Left regarding "intersectionality" and other pointless terms.)
Interesting approach. One could also say "no reasonable person accepts this type of reasoning on such an important topic" regarding your crusade to argue semantics until you're blue in the face and ignoring the larger issue under the pretense of intellectual honesty.
It's quite clear you simply have a problem with the current iteration of the left and want to grind your axe. Well grind away sir, but please stop pretending you do so in some quest to reveal true intellectual enlightenment through hair splitting.
Being honest with both yourself and everyone else about your true motivations can help the conversation move forward.
I mean, his underlying point is right; it matters what it means to be "racist" and so using the term accurately is actually important, unlike IFF's analogy as to the difference between a couch and a chesterfield. This is a word whose meaning is important, because it's a really terrible thing to be, or from the other side, to be accused of being if you're not.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I mean, his underlying point is right; it matters what it means to be "racist" and so using the term accurately is actually important, unlike IFF's analogy as to the difference between a couch and a chesterfield. This is a word whose meaning is important, because it's a really terrible thing to be, or from the other side, to be accused of being if you're not.
But the other thing in discussion, "bigot" is also really terrible, so I don't think the distinction is as great as you make out.
In any event, what is the end game here for Buster? Trump arguably isn't racist based on his words, but is likely a bigot? Umm, yay!?
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fighting Banana Slug For This Useful Post:
I think it was "xenophobe", not "racist", which is bad for different reasons.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
In any event, what is the end game here for Buster? Trump arguably isn't racist based on his words, but is likely a bigot? Umm, yay!?
It should be obvious that my effort here is to hold the discussion to account, much more than it is to defend Trump's policies.
Is it informative to you, to have the dominant conversation in the election be:
- A bunch of people yelling "RACIST!"
- A bunch of people yelling "CROOK!:
And seeing who can shout the other one down most loudly?
Do you not see the irony in complaining about Trump's lack of policy discussion on important topics, and then firehosing the term "RACIST" all over the place? It's all the same garbage.
There are real discussions to be had about how to handle immigration issues with respect to Mexico. There are real discussions to be had about how to handle the spread of Islam, and how that might impact our immigration policy. Sometimes those discussions might involve uncomfortable truths and distasteful policy suggestions. At that point we can toss them based on lack of merit. (Although it is worth noting that Trump's policy suggestion on handling Islam, abhorrent as it is, is also the ONLY policy suggestion on the table.)
When you apply the word "racist", in a disingenuous interpretation of his "policy" suggestion, then you are throwing a hand grenade into the room where reasonable people are trying to have a discussion on the actual stupidity of the actual policy.
I think it was "xenophobe", not "racist", which is bad for different reasons.
Well, let's be clear about this, since you seem to not quite follow my actual point here.
The distinction between "bigotry" and "racism" that Buster (and you, I suppose--though feel free to clarify) is insisting on is actually not based on any particular facet of the attitude, or the behaviour. Rather, it is predicated on an altogether different distinction: the distinction between "race" and "ethnicity."
Language does matter, so let's unpack this. What Buster is saying (and I want to be fair--I don't think you have gone this far) is that whether someone is a "racist" depends entirely on a feature of the person they are discriminating against. That is, if they hate Latinos, they are bigots, while if they hate black people they are racists.
Trump does both of these--that is quite clear from his comments and his history. So in his case the distinction really is unimportant.
But it's also unimportant for a very different, and perhaps more fundamental reason: there is no "bright line" between "race" and "ethnicity". Both of these are simply ways of categorizing people, and both are actually primarily cultural. Race is of course theoretically biological, but this is something of an illusion. In actual fact, how we look at race is conditioned by our culture.
As an example, 19th-century discourse on race routinely characterized Italians, Jews, and Eastern Europeans as "non-white" in the US. According to a strictly semantic definition, this is wrong, right? Well -- not really. It turns out that racism is really not about accurately classifying the other into the right categories--it is about marginalizing all people who fall outside of the idealized ethnic group.
That leads to perhaps the most important reason why this false distinction is silly, and why that matters. Someone isn't a "racist" because of the special characteristics of who they choose to hate. They are a racist because they hold attitudes of cultural and racial exceptionalism and superiority about their own race, and because they view people outside of that group as "other" and "less than."
Racism and xenophobia are different terms, yes. But sometimes they are just a chesterfield and a sofa. Hitler was a racist, yet he persecuted members of a religious group. David Duke is a racist too, even though "European American" isn't really a race by anyone's definition.
And yes--Donald Trump is also a racist. He has called black people "lazy" and has twice been sued by the government for discriminatory practices in renting apartments. He (reportedly) required black casino workers to be removed from the floor of his casino when he and Ivana were there.
And he also participated--vocally--in the "birther" movement, which was about as racist as any conspiracy theorist cult can be.
He also plainly dislikes Mexicans and Muslims. You say that isn't racist because these aren't races--but do you actually think Trump views "Muslims" as being of the same race as him? Latinos?
No chance.
Language matters. And that is why we need to call things what they are, and not allow the wishy-washy relativism of our current political discourse wash away what is maybe the most important fact about this presidential candidate. He is a racist. Is he also a bigot, and a xenophobe? Sure, I can agree with that. But in the end, that distinction is not important. It might be important in other contexts, but it's not important here.
The Following 20 Users Say Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
A multi-page argument about what kind of bigot Donald Trump is the purified putrefied essence of online discussion. Thank you Buster, we are all in debt to you.
Trump does both of these--that is quite clear from his comments and his history. So in his case the distinction really is unimportant.
Maybe so. I just made a general statement.
Quote:
Racism and xenophobia are different terms, yes. But sometimes they are just a chesterfield and a sofa. Hitler was a racist, yet he persecuted members of a religious group. David Duke is a racist too, even though "European American" isn't really a race by anyone's definition.
First, the Jews are kind of a special category, being a religious group that became totally tied up in an ethnicity over a few thousand years. It's hard to use them as an example for anything in this sphere. But yeah, David Duke is a racist, and when he says "European American" we're back into that dog whistle stuff I mentioned at the top of the page.
Quote:
And yes--Donald Trump is also a racist. He has called black people "lazy" and has twice been sued by the government for discriminatory practices in renting apartments. He (reportedly) required black casino workers to be removed from the floor of his casino when he and Ivana were there.
I don't know about the discriminatory practices in renting apartments, but this is pretty much my basis for thinking he's a racist as well. There seems to be a long history of the whole "I want jews counting my money not blacks" type of world view with him.
Quote:
He also plainly dislikes Mexicans and Muslims. You say that isn't racist because these aren't races--but do you actually think Trump views "Muslims" as being of the same race as him? Latinos?
I actually argued that at minimum, targeting Mexicans is deliberately playing race politics, and is basically racist against hispanics, as the two terms are largely synonymous in the context he's using the term. Buster disagrees with me and might have a point, but let's not put words in my mouth. As for Muslims, if Trump uses that as a catch-all term and expresses bigotry towards them, do you think he's expressing simultaneous racism against Arabs, Indonesians, black people and South Asians at the same time? I don't. That one's just a clear misuse of the term.
Anyway this is boring, and if I'm bored, presumably everyone else is comatose.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
On the other hand though, you do have to recognize that there is a long history of right-wing politicians using dog whistles, to "say it without saying it" and signal to the base. That complicates matters significantly. I do think Trump has used that tactic on a few occasions.
This is a very useful and interesting point.
I'm not convinced that Trump is a loose cannon as much as people think - although it benefits him for people to think that. His comments on Mexico and Islam were carefully crafted.
It would be very clear to Trump, that the people who are actually racist or xenophobic or bigoted or generally unsophisticated would welcome his comments as the best they are going to get. The Democrats have their own version of useful idiots, too, so I'm not sure if there is moral high ground to be had in this process on either side.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
I eagerly await Buster's dissertation on why it's wrong to call Hillary a criminal when she hasn't actually been convicted of any crime. As long as we are raising the level of political discourse on a tide of semantics, why stop at just one example?
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
Well, let's be clear about this, since you seem to not quite follow my actual point here.
The distinction between "bigotry" and "racism" that Buster (and you, I suppose--though feel free to clarify) is insisting on is actually not based on any particular facet of the attitude, or the behaviour. Rather, it is predicated on an altogether different distinction: the distinction between "race" and "ethnicity."
Language does matter, so let's unpack this. What Buster is saying (and I want to be fair--I don't think you have gone this far) is that whether someone is a "racist" depends entirely on a feature of the person they are discriminating against. That is, if they hate Latinos, they are bigots, while if they hate black people they are racists.
Trump does both of these--that is quite clear from his comments and his history. So in his case the distinction really is unimportant.
But it's also unimportant for a very different, and perhaps more fundamental reason: there is no "bright line" between "race" and "ethnicity". Both of these are simply ways of categorizing people, and both are actually primarily cultural. Race is of course theoretically biological, but this is something of an illusion. In actual fact, how we look at race is conditioned by our culture.
As an example, 19th-century discourse on race routinely characterized Italians, Jews, and Eastern Europeans as "non-white" in the US. According to a strictly semantic definition, this is wrong, right? Well -- not really. It turns out that racism is really not about accurately classifying the other into the right categories--it is about marginalizing all people who fall outside of the idealized ethnic group.
That leads to perhaps the most important reason why this false distinction is silly, and why that matters. Someone isn't a "racist" because of the special characteristics of who they choose to hate. They are a racist because they hold attitudes of cultural and racial exceptionalism and superiority about their own race, and because they view people outside of that group as "other" and "less than."
Racism and xenophobia are different terms, yes. But sometimes they are just a chesterfield and a sofa. Hitler was a racist, yet he persecuted members of a religious group. David Duke is a racist too, even though "European American" isn't really a race by anyone's definition.
And yes--Donald Trump is also a racist. He has called black people "lazy" and has twice been sued by the government for discriminatory practices in renting apartments. He (reportedly) required black casino workers to be removed from the floor of his casino when he and Ivana were there.
And he also participated--vocally--in the "birther" movement, which was about as racist as any conspiracy theorist cult can be.
He also plainly dislikes Mexicans and Muslims. You say that isn't racist because these aren't races--but do you actually think Trump views "Muslims" as being of the same race as him? Latinos?
No chance.
Language matters. And that is why we need to call things what they are, and not allow the wishy-washy relativism of our current political discourse wash away what is maybe the most important fact about this presidential candidate. He is a racist. Is he also a bigot, and a xenophobe? Sure, I can agree with that. But in the end, that distinction is not important. It might be important in other contexts, but it's not important here.
Great post, and in my view a useful addition to the discussion.
Here's the thing that you are missing in your analysis of Trump's comments on Mexico and Islam:
He neatly sidestepped the distasteful discussion about how to define race, whose DNA is where and why it matters, whether someone is a "race" or an "ethnicity", etc. He neatly sidestepped this by only commenting on nations, and religions. You're the one going down the rabbit hole of racial definition, not him.
It's people on the left, generally, who get caught up in this type of identity politics, because it is necessary to determine who has more points in the oppression olympics, and to determine the hierarchy of oppression about which the current iteration of liberals is so obsessed.
Trump talks about a country, and a religion, and everyone on the left finds themselves wringing their hands about how to properly define latino vs hispanic.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
I'm not convinced that Trump is a loose cannon as much as people think - although it benefits him for people to think that. His comments on Mexico and Islam were carefully crafted.
It would be very clear to Trump, that the people who are actually racist or xenophobic or bigoted or generally unsophisticated would welcome his comments as the best they are going to get. The Democrats have their own version of useful idiots, too, so I'm not sure if there is moral high ground to be had in this process on either side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster
Great post, and in my view a useful addition to the discussion.
Here's the thing that you are missing in your analysis of Trump's comments on Mexico and Islam:
He neatly sidestepped the distasteful discussion about how to define race, whose DNA is where and why it matters, whether someone is a "race" or an "ethnicity", etc. He neatly sidestepped this by only commenting on nations, and religions. You're the one going down the rabbit hole of racial definition, not him.
It's people on the left, generally, who get caught up in this type of identity politics, because it is necessary to determine who has more points in the oppression olympics, and to determine the hierarchy of oppression about which the current iteration of liberals is so obsessed.
Trump talks about a country, and a religion, and everyone on the left finds themselves wringing their hands about how to properly define latino vs hispanic.
Can you provide some examples of this alleged hand-wringing? I haven't seen any.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Why do you keep sidestepping discussion about his comments on blacks and focusing purely on Mexicans and Islam to push your agenda of semantics forward?
We're not even searching that hard to find this stuff. It's not like some random private discussion that was caught on camera like Donald Sterling. He's literally putting his racism and hatred for blacks to the forefront of discussion - calling them lazy, discriminatory practices for rentals (convicted too so again it's right in the public eye).
