If you disagree that water is wet, that is being disingenuous.
Yes, because water being wet is an inherent property.
I do not believe that people being blatantly racist is an inherent quality of anyone. You need to
prove that this is the case.
When you say "those are stats" leaving out that they're obviously false stats, that's being disingenuous
Someone asked me what they were. I answered. If they didn't want that answer, then they should have connected their evidence to a conclusion, rather than let me state one.
It wasn't a straw man. It was an analogy.
Those are not mutually exclusive.
I am saying that something is not racist if the claim is not based in race.
You are saying that something is not racist if it is based on false information while implying (at least, I think you are?) that the it is the same as the argument above.
Yet you claim that Donald Trump did not run a campaign based on said racism.
Didn't Sanders write an essay about how women enjoy rape? It seems unfair to say that because someone thinks or does one thing, that it must then be the basis for their political platform.
Does Trump has a history of racism? Yes. Does this mean that he campained on "blatantly white supremacist" ideas? No.
Of course it is. Everyone can see that it is. It's obvious that no one, even the founders of BLM, would EVER argue that police kill more black people than black people kill each other. The attempt to try and divert focus from the issue and say "hey, black people talk about police brutality, but what about BLACK on black brutality?" is so transparently racist, especially when juxtaposed to the insinuation that most whites aren't killed by other whites (
patently false) that it's absolutely incredible to me that you can't recognize the intent behind it.
It's a red herring, yes. But that does not make it racist. Poor argumentation is not inherently racist.
It's saying "these subhumans keep complaining about police brutality when they can't even stop killing themselves",
Woah woah woah woah. Is Trump saying that black people are subhuman based on this information? Is this a sentiment of his voter base? Most people who see this statistic would blame it on something cultural, like rap music, not on genetics.
You're trying to play contrarian by atributing the most wholesome intent possible to each questionable Trump act. It's incredibly transparent, and at this point I'm dropping the argument because, as you've repeatedly shown, you just aren't willing to take your fingers out of your ears to argue in good faith.
Capitulating purely because someone on the Internet disagrees with me is pathetic and the most furthest thing from arguing in good faith.
So should or shouldn't the American populous analyze the intent behind their representatives' policy making?
Of course they should. I would never deny that they should. That is the ideal democratic situation. But that ideal will unfortunately never come to be.
And I'm not overanalyzing either because no, not every ideological position can be connected to racism through "enough analyzation"
I disagree. This is more of a literary topic, but the interpretation of a work is ultimately up to the person viewing the work. And because of the inherent ambiguity of text, that conclusion could essentially be anything.
Trump and his administration themselves failed to give any reason to believe that the base intention for their policy wasn't rooted in white supremacy. If Trump himself or his policymakers can't give a factual basis for their policy or use the idea that Mexico is flooding us with it's "rapists and criminals", that's on them and not myself for being critical. They're supposed to convince me. They are supposed to make me believe they actually have empathy and aren't simply motivated by a distaste for minorities. That's their job as politicians and not my own to go easy on them.Especially when their own history shows a pattern of white supremacy focused policymaking and political rhetoric. It's possible to talk about.
Being skeptical about the motivations of a person's actions is one thing. Ascribing a ludacris motivation to those actions is another thing entirely.
For example, one could be skeptical of the narrative behind 9/11. But coming to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job based on that skepticism is, infact, the anti-thesis of skepticism.
Given that, I don't think it is a super controversial statement to say that Trump has, on numerous occasions, expressed that the motivation behind his policy is to put "American first". Not white people first. Not straight men first. America first. Now, you could be skeptical of his motivations for saying this and chalk it up to nothing more than a bland political speak. An attempt to simply get voters. But being skeptical of his motivations and saying something is "blatant white supremacy" is two different worlds. You can be unconvinced, but saying that "I will put America first" or "Make America Great Again" is code for white supremacy is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.
Regarding the statistic, I don't really care if Trump didn't create this image. He is the president. Either he should look up/actually know the facts about what he's talking about or check his sources to make sure he's not posting something patently false.
This tweet was put out November 22nd 2015. A full year before he would win the Presidential election.
In this case, either he was just stupid and posted it without thinking which implies he already has it in his head that black people are dangerous and police brutality isn't real which doesn't inspire anything but contempt.
When the image of the "Thug" is the common image when the idea of violence perpetrated by African Americans in the mind of your standard baby-boomer neo-con, it shouldn't come as a shock. This ultimately underlines a view shared by many Americans of life as an African American in an urban area. The image of the "Thug" is not seen as something that is inherent to the nature of African Americans, but rather the cultural biproduct of their environment. So rather, it is not that black people as a whole are seen as inherently dangerous and genetically inferior, but rather that someone who has lived in a dangerous environment for their entire life would then turn out dangerous.
Sorry
Chrome , but Trump and his cabinet have a history of racist behavior. Their campaign and then their policies have been a series of unsubtle appeals to their racist base.
I can't imagine what would motivate you to make so many posts in their defense.
One of the first posts I made in this discussion was highlighting how the difference between an ethnocentric contempt of a group based on their culture and a racist contempt of a group based on their race. Both could be considered damning. But saying that Trump's campaign is based on "blatant white supremacy", in my mind is nothing more than an extreme falsehood, absolutely devoid of any nuance or tact. In my mind, such view points are an inherent detriment to society and should be challenged whenever they are seen. So by no means am I defending the actions of the Trump administration. With the exception of Trump working with Democrats on DACA, I have heard little of anything good from his tenure. But criticizing something for what it's not is not something that I am willing to slide by.
The base intention of Trump's Muslim ban was to ban Muslims, though, wasn't it?
If it were to directly target Muslims as a minority group, then Trump would be willing to remove all Muslims from the US on top of permanently stopping Muslim immigration. But the Muslim ban is neither permanent nor are Muslims who are in the US legally being deported. Given this, he is not targetting minorities because they are minorities, but rather that he thinks that there is a problem with the vetting process for bringing Muslims into the US. According to him, the best way to resolve this problem is to temporarily shut down the system such that it can be reworked.
And you know, I've heard "ensure national security", but never "enhance the way of life of Americans as a national group"
"Make America Great Again" was literally his campaign slogan.
False macros and 'statistics' like that one are made with a clear racist purpose, and it was retweeted by Trump.
See above. The image could just as easily imply that there is a problem with the "African American community". The interpretation of the data would vary from person to person, but I think most would go with the idea that it is a cultural problem, not a racial one.
