Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 230: Not a racist bone spur in his body

(+) Yeah! (+)

Corrik7 posted...

pyresword posted...

If Trump said "go back to where you came from" to a congressman who emigrated from Germany, then yes it would be racist.

I rather doubt this would be the reaction in that scenario, but if it would be for you, then kudos for remaining consistent in your beliefs.

German isnt a race.
---

Fair enough.
---

What? German is as much a race as Somali.
---

red sox 777 posted...

What? German is as much a race as Somali.

It is a nationality. And, the reason I dropped it is because I see the rabbit hole it is gonna be argued into.

I say well I am referring to Non Hispanic Whites then. Then they will say Middle Eastern is Non Hispanic White.

When in reality we know they are considering "Islam" as a race and not a religion as they normally do because otherwise they are arguing Trump is being racist against a Non Hispanic White person than in Rashida Tlaib. So, the argument just rabbit holes to that destination despite it not making any sense and wasn't worth the time arguing it to that final destination.
---

Who said middle eastern is non-Hispanic white?
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Who said middle eastern is non-Hispanic white?

The United States Census Bureau. Which is where I assume you are taking your races from.
---

Yes, this is what I'm talking about. Liberals conflate race and religion. Since it seems to be out of ignorance, they should be called out on it.
---

This is why its easier just to say bigoted
---

I mean, let's be honest here. If a conservative was pissed off at a middle eastern Jew or Christian, it's not like they'd be woke enough to correctly identify that religion in their bigotry. They'd just identify the skin tone and ethnicity, and hate said person as a "Muslim".
---

The point was. If these congresswomen were English ancestry, Germany ancestry, etc. And Trump said this. No one would call him a racist. Besides apparently the one person in this topic who said they still would (grain of salt because it is not as it came up and as part of an argument to support his stance).

You are calling him a racist for the comment cuz they are all minorities of some type and that is the go to thing to claim when someone says something mean to minorities.

This really should just be "Man, Donald Trump is being a real ass saying they should go back to their ancestral countries because they are anti his policies". But, instead, it is being argued as racist when it would not be argued that way if he said the same thing to 4 European ancestry White women.
---

Inviso posted...

I mean, let's be honest here. If a conservative was pissed off at a middle eastern Jew or Christian, it's not like they'd be woke enough to correctly identify that religion in their bigotry. They'd just identify the skin tone and ethnicity, and hate said person as a "Muslim".

Completely wrong.

Please observe how conservatives treat Israel.
---

Weird how words have different meanings based on context.
---

Corrik7 posted...

The point was. If these congresswomen were English ancestry, Germany ancestry, etc. And Trump said this. No one would call him a racist. Besides apparently the one person in this topic who said they still would (grain of salt because it is not as it came up and as part of an argument to support his stance).

You are calling him a racist for the comment cuz they are all minorities of some type and that is the go to thing to claim when someone says something mean to minorities.

This really should just be "Man, Donald Trump is being a real ass saying they should go back to their ancestral countries because they are anti his policies". But, instead, it is being argued as racist when it would not be argued that way if he said the same thing to 4 European ancestry White women.

it comes across as racist because I dont think he would say the same thing about four white women. Bernie Sanders wants to destroy America with socialism too, why doesnt Trump tell him to go back to Europe? Why didnt he tell Ted Cruz to go back to Canada during the republican primary?

for some reason its just these nonwhite people he thinks should leave
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

Corrik7 posted...

The point was. If these congresswomen were English ancestry, Germany ancestry, etc. And Trump said this. No one would call him a racist. Besides apparently the one person in this topic who said they still would (grain of salt because it is not as it came up and as part of an argument to support his stance).

You are calling him a racist for the comment cuz they are all minorities of some type and that is the go to thing to claim when someone says something mean to minorities.

This really should just be "Man, Donald Trump is being a real ass saying they should go back to their ancestral countries because they are anti his policies". But, instead, it is being argued as racist when it would not be argued that way if he said the same thing to 4 European ancestry White women.

it comes across as racist because I dont think he would say the same thing about four white women. Bernie Sanders wants to destroy America with socialism too, why doesnt Trump tell him to go back to Europe? Why didnt he tell Ted Cruz to go back to Canada during the republican primary?

for some reason its just these nonwhite people he thinks should leave

In fact, he told Ted Cruz that he should go get a declaratory judgment that he was allowed to be president if he wanted to run.
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

Corrik7 posted...

The point was. If these congresswomen were English ancestry, Germany ancestry, etc. And Trump said this. No one would call him a racist. Besides apparently the one person in this topic who said they still would (grain of salt because it is not as it came up and as part of an argument to support his stance).

You are calling him a racist for the comment cuz they are all minorities of some type and that is the go to thing to claim when someone says something mean to minorities.

This really should just be "Man, Donald Trump is being a real ass saying they should go back to their ancestral countries because they are anti his policies". But, instead, it is being argued as racist when it would not be argued that way if he said the same thing to 4 European ancestry White women.

it comes across as racist because I dont think he would say the same thing about four white women. Bernie Sanders wants to destroy America with socialism too, why doesnt Trump tell him to go back to Europe? Why didnt he tell Ted Cruz to go back to Canada during the republican primary?

for some reason its just these nonwhite people he thinks should leave

That is a better argument than the "that comment is clearly racist" argument.
---

I should perhaps clarify that I don't use the word "racism" to refer exclusively to discrimination based on skin color, and I also do not interpret it in that way when others use it unless context implies that's clearly what they're referring to.

I think of it more as discrimination based on perceived cultural identity.
---

Surprised Sinema seems to be friendly to working with Republicans (tho I assume she never will when a deciding vote ofc) figuring she was a green politician before running as a dem.
---

Ok "based on cultural identity" is probably a bit too general, but the specific case I'm trying to iron out here is that to my mind it's possible to racially discriminate between White Americans and White Europeans even though they would both fall under the category of "Caucasian", or something.

Maybe "based on ethnic origin" is a better definition? I'm not 100% sure here off the top of my head.
---

pyresword posted...

Ok "based on cultural identity" is probably a bit too general, but the specific case I'm trying to iron out here is that to my mind it's possible to racially discriminate between White Americans and White Europeans even though they would both fall under the category of "Caucasian", or something.

Maybe "based on ethnic origin" is a better definition? I'm not 100% sure here off the top of my head.

I think the bar for racism should be set incredibly high because it is a very egregious claim to make about someone.

If you have to interpret something in certain ways to get to a racism claim, I feel it already has failed to meet the threshold. Racism should be obvious, with no other rational reasons existing to justify the behavior.

Only then should claims of racism be levied. I feel we as society are way too gungho to apply labels, and it makes a lax and looser understanding of the labels come about which degrades and lessens the charge of it.
---

Race is a complicated social construct that includes many factors, including but not limited to physical appearance, genetic ancestry, cultural values, religion, and nationality. Application of these isn't even consistent when determining race.

It's most accurate to say Trump's comments were nativist, xenophobic, or simply bigoted, but this is why "racist" is also an acceptable shorthand.
---

Also, xenophobic and bigoted, while more accurate, are also a bit to intellectual of terms for the people they apply to, to truly give the proper weight and negative meaning. Theres a reason why they always get up-in-arms and offended by racist, and say dumb shit like racism doesnt mean anything anymore, thanks to libs. Its pretty much the only slur that can ever make a privileged douchebag feel as shamed and shitty as the minorities they shit-talk.
---

Espeon posted...

Also, xenophobic and bigoted, while more accurate, are also a bit to intellectual of terms for the people they apply to, to truly give the proper weight and negative meaning. Theres a reason why they always get up-in-arms and offended by racist, and say dumb shit like racism doesnt mean anything anymore, thanks to libs. Its pretty much the only slur that can ever make a privileged douchebag feel as shamed and shitty as the minorities they shit-talk.

So you admit the charges are dishonest and false and are in fact defamatory slurs that hurt people including minorities.
---

pyresword posted...

Ok "based on cultural identity" is probably a bit too general, but the specific case I'm trying to iron out here is that to my mind it's possible to racially discriminate between White Americans and White Europeans even though they would both fall under the category of "Caucasian", or something.

Maybe "based on ethnic origin" is a better definition? I'm not 100% sure here off the top of my head.

Maybe Anglo-Saxons (rather, their descendants) as compared to Everyone Else in this case.

But either way, race doesn't exist so it's hard to pin down the definition of racism. Racism's the shadow of the belief in an idea that's incorrect to start with. Race is so ephemeral that it can change depending on the decade or be legislated away or whatever. Are Italians white? Well, tell me their skin color and the year and what country they're in.

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Race is a complicated social construct that includes many factors, including but not limited to physical appearance, genetic ancestry, cultural values, religion, and nationality. Application of these isn't even consistent when determining race.

Or this too. I'm not sure how I missed it but this nails it.
---

Fun fact: Corrik has never once tried to hit a piata.

After all, he just can't see it.
---

Corrik7 posted...

I think the bar for racism should be set incredibly high because it is a very egregious claim to make about someone.

What would it take for you to believe Trump said something racist? What words?
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik7 posted...

I think the bar for racism should be set incredibly high because it is a very egregious claim to make about someone.

What would it take for you to believe Trump said something racist? What words?

IIRC, when Trump specifically and directly said Judge Curiel shouldnt preside over the Trump U lawsuit against Trump because hes Mexican, even that wasnt enough

TAPPER: I don't care if you criticize him, that's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying, if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job.

TRUMP: I think that's why he's doing it. I think that's why he's doing it.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik7 posted...

I think the bar for racism should be set incredibly high because it is a very egregious claim to make about someone.

What would it take for you to believe Trump said something racist? What words?

IIRC, when Trump specifically and directly said Judge Curiel shouldnt preside over the Trump U lawsuit against Trump because hes Mexican, even that wasnt enough

TAPPER: I don't care if you criticize him, that's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying, if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job.

TRUMP: I think that's why he's doing it. I think that's why he's doing it.

Not rehashing tired, old arguments. He was arguing there was a conflict of issues there that could affect the ruling. Not that Mexican judges can't possibly be effective judges. And he was likely doing so with the goal of trying to have a basis for appeal.
---

The thing is that modern liberal academia has identified everything as a spectrum. Sexuality, disability, morality, etc. It's not necessarily wrong, but it has completely eliminated the binary "racism or not racism" argument that everyone wants to have.

There is a spectrum to racial rhetoric, and I personally don't think Trump has crossed the line into bigotry. But all of this is a result of changing academic discourse since the 1950s.
---

Trump's not racist, so obviously him saying that any given Mexican couldn't preside over a case involving him because of his racism is obviously not racist.
---

Arguing that anyone who is of Mexican descent would have a conflict of interest and could not be fair judges of a case against Trump is pretty bigoted.
---

kevwaffles posted...

Trump's not racist, so obviously him saying that any given Mexican couldn't preside over a case involving him because of his racism is obviously not racist.

Like corrik said, the argument is that this judge has a loyalty to Mexican immigrants because of his background.

It's on the spectrum, but it's not a 10/10 slam dunk example of racial bigotry.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Arguing that anyone who is of Mexican descent would have a conflict of interest and could not be fair judges of a case against Trump is pretty bigoted.

The left does this constantly with Jews vis-a-vis Israel
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Arguing that anyone who is of Mexican descent would have a conflict of interest and could not be fair judges of a case against Trump is pretty bigoted.

The left does this constantly with Jews vis-a-vis Israel

Not sure what you mean? Like they say that no Jewish judge could be impartial in a case involving Israel? That would be equally bigoted but how many court cases are there in the US against Israel?
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

kevwaffles posted...

Trump's not racist, so obviously him saying that any given Mexican couldn't preside over a case involving him because of his racism is obviously not racist.

Like corrik said, the argument is that this judge has a loyalty to Mexican immigrants because of his background.

It's on the spectrum, but it's not a 10/10 slam dunk example of racial bigotry.

But the case has nothing to do with Mexican immigrants
---

I believe he's talking about being critical of Israel being equated with anti-Semitism, despite that literally not being anywhere near the same thing.

That would be the equivalent of people calling Trump being critical of the Mexican government as racist. Which he has been plenty of times and I don't recall anyone ever calling him racist specifically for it.
---

kevwaffles posted...

I believe he's talking about being critical of Israel being equated with anti-Semitism, despite that literally not being anywhere near the same thing.

Im confused then because the Left is trying to distinguish between those two things, unless you mean just establishment Democrats
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Arguing that anyone who is of Mexican descent would have a conflict of interest and could not be fair judges of a case against Trump is pretty bigoted.

The left does this constantly with Jews vis-a-vis Israel

Not sure what you mean? Like they say that no Jewish judge could be impartial in a case involving Israel? That would be equally bigoted but how many court cases are there in the US against Israel?

Jewish congressmen
---

I'm operating under the assumption that he's implying something that's incredibly wrong though. He's free to clarify otherwise.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Arguing that anyone who is of Mexican descent would have a conflict of interest and could not be fair judges of a case against Trump is pretty bigoted.

The left does this constantly with Jews vis-a-vis Israel

Not sure what you mean? Like they say that no Jewish judge could be impartial in a case involving Israel? That would be equally bigoted but how many court cases are there in the US against Israel?

Jewish congressmen

Ok now you're just saying words to say them.
---

I love lamp
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Arguing that anyone who is of Mexican descent would have a conflict of interest and could not be fair judges of a case against Trump is pretty bigoted.

The left does this constantly with Jews vis-a-vis Israel

Not sure what you mean? Like they say that no Jewish judge could be impartial in a case involving Israel? That would be equally bigoted but how many court cases are there in the US against Israel?

Jewish congressmen

The left tries to argue that Jewish congressmen shouldnt be involved in legislation that references Israel? Thats pretty fucked up if true.
---

Jewish congressman votes in resolution supporting Israel

Leftists say he/she is only doing so because they are Jewish

This happens constantly. And mentally Ilhan Omar is probably the least transparent about it.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

The thing is that modern liberal academia has identified everything as a spectrum. Sexuality, disability, morality, etc. It's not necessarily wrong, but it has completely eliminated the binary "racism or not racism" argument that everyone wants to have.

There is a spectrum to racial rhetoric, and I personally don't think Trump has crossed the line into bigotry. But all of this is a result of changing academic discourse since the 1950s.

there is not a spectrum to being racist. Stuff is either racist or not racist.

People can be racist without realizing it. And people can definitely be more...deplorable...with their racism. But individual events being racist is not on any sort of a spectrum. Its very much yes, no.

Also the 3 things you listed do in fact undeniably have a spectrum. They are fairly incomparable to being racist.
---

Like is this something similar to the people who attacked Kennedy on the basis that, as a Catholic, his loyalty to America would be lower on his priorities than his loyalty to the Pope?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Arguing that anyone who is of Mexican descent would have a conflict of interest and could not be fair judges of a case against Trump is pretty bigoted.

The left does this constantly with Jews vis-a-vis Israel

Not sure what you mean? Like they say that no Jewish judge could be impartial in a case involving Israel? That would be equally bigoted but how many court cases are there in the US against Israel?

Jewish congressmen

The left tries to argue that Jewish congressmen shouldnt be involved in legislation that references Israel? Thats pretty fucked up if true.

CONSTANTLY dude. You're just willfully ignoring "bigotry" if you don't want to look for these examples.
---

red13n posted...

there is not a spectrum to being racist. Stuff is either racist or not racist.

That's a fine argument to have, but you'd be arguing against the tide of a century of academia.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jewish congressman votes in resolution supporting Israel

Leftists say he/she is only doing so because they are Jewish

This happens constantly. And mentally Ilhan Omar is probably the least transparent about it.

Even if that is actually true (about someone of political status), it still wouldn't wouldn't be the same as saying "they should remove themselves from all legislation involving Israel", which would be the equivalent.
---

kevwaffles posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jewish congressman votes in resolution supporting Israel

Leftists say he/she is only doing so because they are Jewish

This happens constantly. And mentally Ilhan Omar is probably the least transparent about it.

Even if that is actually true (about someone of political status), it still wouldn't wouldn't be the same as saying "they should remove themselves from all legislation involving Israel", which would be the equivalent.

There's no difference other than whether a statement comes before or after a vote
---

red13n posted...

Also the 3 things you listed do in fact undeniably have a spectrum. They are fairly incomparable to being racist.

What makes something on a spectrum vs binary?
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Arguing that anyone who is of Mexican descent would have a conflict of interest and could not be fair judges of a case against Trump is pretty bigoted.

The left does this constantly with Jews vis-a-vis Israel

Not sure what you mean? Like they say that no Jewish judge could be impartial in a case involving Israel? That would be equally bigoted but how many court cases are there in the US against Israel?

Jewish congressmen

The left tries to argue that Jewish congressmen shouldnt be involved in legislation that references Israel? Thats pretty fucked up if true.

CONSTANTLY dude. You're just willfully ignoring "bigotry" if you don't want to look for these examples.

I plead ignorance but not willful ignorance

Like I said, if thats happening, thats just as bad
---