Do you have anything not from last century?

1. A good business decision in 1973 is proof of Trump's racism today? That's a stretch.
2. The central park 5 were bashing random people in the park - this is an undisputed fact of the case - they just didn't rape the woman in question. I have zero sympathy for people who brutally bash random strangers including women. None of this is racist.
3. This is catering to racists and not racist in itself. Again, a business decision.
4. Questioning Obama's birthplace isn't racist any more than questioning whether Ted Cruz was born in Canada is racist - something he also did repeatedly. If anything this claim is evidence of extreme overreach in claiming racism.

You basically have nothing if that's your list, which is why I asked for it. In fact, if these are the best examples from 50+ years in real estate with tens of thousands of employees across diverse global businesses and tens of millions of customer interactions, your list is hard proof that Trump is anti-racist.

Against this weak list, we have Trump openly supporting black drug addicts and welcoming them into his own family - she was so appalled by Trump being called racist when he clearly isn't that she made a video:



Racist Trump with his KKK buddies:



Your list provides case closed he's not racist imo.

"Good" business decisions can also be racist. They can also not be good!

refusing to rent to black people.. GOOD BUSINESS DECISION according to ToothSayer..

TS, is it your position that business decisions that violate racial discrimination law are not evidence of racism?

You asked for 3 examples and I gave you 4. That is far from an exhaustive list so it's premature to claim victory for your position, especially based on a testimonial and a photo of him with black people.

Both synogauge shooters hated trump.

it's odd to me why right wingers always instant believe these things about the shooters, but its always a "joke" when they directly reference conservative leaders/speakers like candace owens.

When levittown ny was built in 1948 it was in the contracts that you couldn't sell or rent to black people

When levitt, a Jew was interviewed about it years later, he said he hated to put that in there but the neighborhood would not have succeeded if he didn't and he's glad the world has changed

My point is it is possible to make racist decisions in the business world and not be racist

It's in the manifestos. You can choose to ignore

Regardless blaming trump is not only inaccurate but it's lazy

This is why people accuse you of trolling. Are you seriously arguing that racist conduct is not racist if it is a good business decision (i.e., if it benefits you financially)?

I suspect that many slave holders in the 1840s would have been reluctant to offer that defense.

How about my example? Is that racist?

OMG. You found a few violent anti-Semites who don't like Trump. I feel so checkmated. Would it surprise you to learn that many hate groups also hate each other?

But Trump could rent to black people, no one was forcing him not to, and in fact, he got in trouble with the law for not doing so!

I guess I'll have to go back the same old story of George Wallace. When he first ran as a politician he ran as a racial moderate. Not exactly intermarriage but let black and white families live together. He lost to a segregationist. He then vowed not to let another politician "out-n*gger" him and he reran as an ardent segregationist that people now know him as.

Was George Wallace deep in his heart of hearts an ardent believer in segregation? I don't know, maybe not. But does it matter?

Levittown was racist, full stop, and the decision to create it was racist, full stop.

The problem here, which is not uncommon in these conversations, is that you're using an unnecessarily restricted definition of racism.

We can agree that people's motivations are complicated and involve more than just pure animus in most cases.

But racism as a contemporary social problem and political issue isn't really about gauging motivations. It's about assessing sources of inequalities and the problems that arise as a consequence of inequality. Levittown was racist (like many other examples involving housing policy in the 20th century) because it contributed greatly to inequality by excluding black Americans from the middle class. It matters that this exclusion was unjust regardless of the motivations of any individual actor. Our assessment that these acts are unjust is important because it contributes to our political will to do something to correct the inequity which has results from those acts.

Basically: the political purpose of talking about racism shouldn't normally be about deciding whether some individual was motivated by hate. It should be about addressing unjust sources of social inequality.

our point is that it isn't. the fact that he believed it wouldn't succeed and that he said that later is still racist. i dont know a ton about levittown but even in your example, you are agreeing that he caved to racists to make a dollar, and then did it multiple more times with the same racist policies..

according to NYT economists have said his claim that the towns would fail is bull****, because there were lines formed waiting for those houses, and his fear of his racially selected clientele moving out to not be replaced was unfounded because of the desire for affordable housing.

We went over this ground a million times in the old forum. The distinction between the "true heart" racist and the person who is willing to say and do racist things for political expediency or profit is so trivial that it barely warrants discussion.

Like Well Named said, it's just an ahistorical restriction on what "racist" is. According to the definition you have to have a deep abiding loathing of a different race AND avoid working with and/or having affable ties with that race. Like it's already been pointed out, that excludes all the slave owners who raped their slaves. How could they be racist and still have intercourse with them and/or ever be friendly to them, talk warmly about one etc?

So when you take the definition and project it backwards and it turns out that almost no one was racist during Jim Crow and slavery then the game is up.

In fairness, Mets seems to be implying it is possible to argue Levitt wasn’t rascist, not Levittown wasn’t rascist. An important distinction.

is it though?

If I find a picture of Strom Thurmond with the mother of his biracial child, will that prove that Strom Thurmond was not racist?

Even if you think Levitt wasn't personally racist but he succumbed to the institutional racism preventing him from being revealing his true non racist feelings, Trump literally did the opposite. The prevailing legal and business environment for Trump was that it was permissible to sell to black people. In fact, you got in trouble if you intentionally didn't sell to black people, which is exactly what Trump did!

It's probably worth pointing out that "doing something with racist consequences for non-racist reasons" is a pretty good illustration of the entire idea of structural racism. Or structurally-created inequality, if you prefer.

As far as Trump goes, I also think it's entirely reasonable to infer prejudicial beliefs from many of Trump's statements, and I think prejudicial beliefs are consequential in our culture, in a more diffuse and harder to measure way (cf. a useful example). But I also think Trump's individual prejudices (whatever they may be) are much less important than actual policy making.

This is fair enough. I'm ok with making this distinction but I think it's relatively unimportant.

That's BS because what racists hear is not racist. The distinction is enabling. Racist is as racist does.

I think a discussion about how to most effectively pursue anti-racist consciousness raising would be interesting, but I'm going to leave it for now, and I wasn't really suggesting anything anyway. I was just allowing an intellectual distinction which I think is descriptively valid. In any case I'm not suggesting that we ought not to try to get people to consider how their thinking or attitudes may be prejudicial. Nor am I suggesting to stop using the word racist. Nor am I agreeing with TS' defense of Trump.

Both of these "business decisions" involve literally breaking the law in order to perform actions that were prejudiced against black people. So your contention is not only that making racist decisions is not racist if they're for business reasons but that even breaking the law in order to make these prejudicial business decisions is somehow still a fine thing to do?

The funny thing is I agree with all of this. Except I strongly disagree with the implication that the MAGA hat is a trivial detail.

Also it would be different if just one of them was wearing it. But only with the safety of numbers do a bunch of them feel comfortable wearing it. That shows you that the hat means something - and everyone knows it including them.

The MAGA hat as become a symbol of a lot more than just "liking Trump". There's a reason why no one wears them in public - at least in liberal enclave like the National Mall in DC. I've seen one, ever, in LA - since the very early days of the Trump campaign. It was a Russian guy hiking on Mt. Baldy.

IMO the MAGA hat has become a symbol of racial intolerance, and the kind of ugly hate-filled rhetoric spewed by the "LOCK THE ***** UP!" crowd at Trump rallies. I think the rallies is where it turned from an "I like Trump" hat to a menacing symbol.

Maybe your take is that it's become something different - but you have to admit wearing a MAGA hat in public in a lot of places is not nothing. That's just the reality of the situation.