The problem with these types of conversations is the term racist is being so broadly used, it now falls in to the category with some micro bias in your subconscious. That's clearly not the same thing as overt hatred and bias. Both can be labelled as racist though.

It's kind of the same thing with the term rapist. A 25 year old who bangs a 17 year old with D cups who he met at the bar and assumed she was an adult by circumstance is not the same as a guy who jumps out of the bushes in the park and violently forces themselves upon people, which is not the same as two intoxicated people having sex and one deciding they were too intoxicated to consent the next day. All fall under the umbrella of rape and all are very different issues in severity and morality.

From everything I've seen with Trump and racism accusations its people using mind reads and misinformation to create a hyperbolic conclusion. Trump can't even condemn MS-13 mutilating children without being called a racist

You're reputation precedes you dog but you should be fine if you're not as insufferably domineering and sophomoric like TS is.


Yes, but then all you have to do is ask yourself WHY his support is low among Latinos and recall all the incredibly racist stuff that formed his political persona in regards to Latinos and Mexico specificalaly. The problem works itself out regardless of which direction you approach it from.

why is it high among cubans?

there are reasons

the reason he thinks is that many mexican americans have relatives in mexico who may want to cross illegally maybe? Again I think it's an unintelligent theory

but trumps low ratings among minorities are for many reasons, media being one of them. and trump isnt really worse off among latinos then any past republican

anyhow yes if you want to make a case on him being racist and use this as periphiral evidence in your case yes it is acceptable

happy?

Some poor soul invented the term "microaggression" just for people like yourself and not only weren't you satisfied, you mocked the term and deemed it ridiculous.

So which is it? "Racism" as a broad definition or separate terms for each parceled division? They both work from a linguistic standpoint.

The option you don't have is for your abhorrent worldviews to not be deemed abhorrent. I mean, lol, spoiler alert and all but there's no choice-C-none-of-the-above. You don't get to post quasiphrenology and have that happen.

This is a bull**** strawman. Not a single sane person would call an abstract condemnation of mutilating children racist but Trump never talks about it in the abstract it is always in relation to immigration. MS-13 are a vile group but the reality is that there are significantly more people fleeing from them into the US than than there are members trying to enter the US. Trump's characterisation of immigration being in anyway responsible for any increase in the atrocities committed by them is a false narrative that is purely used to stir emotions and for political gain.

It is the broad brush characterisation of all immigrants by the constant references to MS-13 that is called racist and your statement is clearly nonsense.

I would've assumed this was covered in POG but Cubans align with Rs because they view them as more pro-capitalism, because Cuba is communist. It sounds absurd when it's phrased like that because it is, and it doesn't really make total sense when picked at, but there it is.


Trump: The Political Entity is so blatantly racist that the interesting conversations that might come from this forum deal with why people such as yourself can't see and/or acknowledge it. The relitigation is the uninteresting part.

Good people on both sides (one side chanting "Jews will not replace us")

"I promise you that I’m much smarter than Jonathan Leibowitz – I mean Jon Stewart" - Trump

"Stupidly, you want to give money. ...You're not going to support me because I don't want your money." - Trump to the Republican Jewish Coalition

"Is there anyone in this room who doesn't negotiate deals? Probably more than any room I've ever spoken." - Trump to the Republican Jewish Coalition

Tweeted picture of HRC, cackling with the Star of David

Would not criticize David Duke

Tweeted that Kavanaugh protesters were paid by Soros

“Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day" - Trump

illegal

trump rarely talks about immigration problems. almost all of his immigration rhetoric is directed at illegal immigration.

Asylum seeking isn't illegal.

i mean maybe thats why there are different crimes under "Rape" that carry different penalties.

did dude A and C in your scenario not commit a rape? is someone that commits a rape not a rapist?

are you arguing that just because someone does a little racism they shouldn't be accused of being a racist?

I'll grant that it's generally been stated in the context of illegal immigration rather than all immigration. It doesn't make your statement any less absurd and nor does it justify his false rhetoric regarding illegal immigration in any way resulting in a rise in violence from MS-13 in the US.

I thought my point was clear that words like rapist and racist have a very wide net. They also have a ton of weight. We are talking about old people here. Just so you know, Biden's history also contains actions that are considered racist today. I don't think Biden is a racist. With todays insight, i'm sure he would have done things differently and he wasn't being malicious at the time either. People are allowed to be ignorant 30-50 years ago imo

Using murky cases from 50 years ago can certainly help paint a picture, but if it isn't accompanied by similar behavior in recent history, i think people should avoid hyperbolic conclusions.

Agree that trying to separate people into "racist" and "not a racist" buckets is pointless.

Trump does and says a lot of racially insensitive **** and clearly a lot of white supremacist groups feel that he is their friend (or at least as close a thing to their friend they could ever realistically hope to get in office). They feel empowered by the fact that he is in power.

Don't you kind of have to believe Biden isn't racist or else that'd blow up your theory that being considered racist is a heavy burden?

That sounded a bit hash so let me rephrase. What if Biden did do things that could be considered racist, and still was allowed to be the VP of the first black president?

I'm not sure I understand the question. That happened and it didn't seem to be a problem. Biden and Obama weren't just political allies, they also seemed to have a genuine friendship

Well, I think a good rule of thumb should be to ask yourself, "Do I think Person X actually believes they are superior to Person Y due to their race?" If there is a reasonable argument the answer is no, then I would err on the side of not accusing them of racism.

For example, sometimes someone might get into an emotional fight with another person and call them a racial slur out of anger and immediate desire to hurt that person. If there is a reasonable argument that is all that happened and there was no motivation of superiority, I think we can leave the racism gun in its holster.

FWIW I don't think Trump deserves this benefit of the doubt. Given the totality of his words and actions, I think arguing he isn't racist is an exercise in cognitive dissonance.

Well sure, if you define racism as something that isn't racism then it turns out no one is a racist.

Yes. And I have been writing this for many years. Many people who are called racist are actually just selfish. (Or in some cases ignorant.) And even though being racist and selfish are about equally bad, that doesn't mean it is a trivial error to call a selfish person racist. Partly because those who are selfish but not racist often are quite certain of their non racism and so are those people who know them well. So the inaccurate accuser loses all credibility. The second reason relates to a situation that comes up in the game of bridge and many other situations as well. Sometimes you assume that the opponent on your right has the ace of hearts even though he probably doesn't because if he doesn't, you can't win anyway. I'm pretty sure that a selfish person is more likely to change if he is confronted with his selfishness than a racist would be if he is confronted with his racism.

rac·ism
/ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

Lucky for us, it appears I am actually defining racism as racism, so that isn't an issue.

What does a selfish person gain by claiming all POC are criminals? What does a selfish person gain by cheering on the caging of children on the border?

Even granting your premise, it's impossible to tell the difference between JVs racist posts being because in his heart of hearts he really is selfish or because he really is racist. The posts still get made.

As long as criticism of the racist poster ends the racist posts I don't care if he thinks I'm credible or not. I don't care if JV's best friend thinks I'm credible or not. The people he is causing pain to by his racist posting don't care if I'm credible or not.

You seem to think that it's possible to separate the language from the superiority, that we need to do some insightful parsing to get to the racist's heart of hearts. The use of degenerating language is in itself evidence of superiority. Just like usage of sexist language is evidence of sexism.

You're really going to go up the hill of JV's language isn't because he's racist but because he slipped and used the wrong language?

I am not talking about JV at all, and I don't think you think I am, so we will just call that sentence what it is, a straw man, and move on.

If the use of denigrating language was in itself evidence of superiority, then a black person calling a white person a cracker would be just as racist as a white person calling a black person the N word. But that clearly isn't the case, because intent matters. So I think it is very relevant and important to try to ascertain intent if we are trying to be honest and responsible.

I would use the same argument a Latino lawyers group calling themselves "La Raza" is not rascist, due to context and lack of intent of superiority.

Just the version of racism that you think makes you look better. Great forum this already turned into.

I would be ok with that definition. I think we can come to a reasonable determination that if there is no evidence of intent of hatred or intolerance, we can restrain from indiscriminately throwing out the "R" word.

This is still a much more reasonable standard than Kerowo's "use of degenerating language = racism" standard, and takes context and intent into account.