Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 231: The Sleepy One

(+) Yeah! (+)

red13n posted...

A family member here has CNN on.

They are having a 10 minute discussion about how Trump is racist adjacent and finding all sorts of alternative words to avoid alienating whatever viewers they can.

Literal argument, they want to call him a bigot and not a racist because his words are hurtful not just to blacks, but jews and whole bunch of other various groups.

Literally calling him a racist and then trying to justify saying you cant call him racist because he fits into all these other horrible things.

Basically, the "liberal" media is fucking trash at not just being in Trump's pocket.

Sounds like a shit show
---

they've repeated that trump makes racist attacks, they've talked about how he intentionally emboldens white supremacists. they've called him a race baiter.

but they have intentionally avoided calling him a racist for a solid 30 minutes.
---

heres a new one...

this...uhhh...offensive thing.

The dude literally paused, hesitated, and then came out with the words offensive thing.
---

red13n posted...

heres a new one...

this...uhhh...offensive thing.

The dude literally paused, hesitated, and then came out with the words offensive thing.

Who is CNN trying to capture in viewership? Liberals ain't gonna watch that and sure the hell conservatives aren't.

Apparently red is tho.
---

Conservatives already hate CNN so

you can call trump both a racist and a bigot, but the CNN people are right that JUST calling him a racist isn't enough. if you do that, you're ignoring the discriminatory things he has said about women and other groups.
---

Corrik7 posted...

Who is CNN trying to capture in viewership? Liberals ain't gonna watch that and sure the hell conservatives aren't.

Apparently red is tho.

No this is part of the widespread liberal media strategy where you pretend that Trump being racist is a brilliant political play and that calling him a racist only serves to play into his diabolical schemes.
---

I think the theory is that "racist" has become a buzzword in the eyes of American Conservatives, and when used by Liberals it looks bad because it seems like it's only trying to score political points rather than legitimate judgment.

I don't necessarily agree with the theory, but I believe that's the idea.

Edit: Or I should say--I actually do agree with the theory as presented here, but disagree with the notion that it's a fundamental limitation. (ie. You just have to say "he's a racist because X, Y, and Z")
---

Republicans: IF YOU CALL EVERYONE A RACIST, THE WORD LOSES ALL MEANING!

Also, Republicans: Bernie is a socialist. AOC is a socialist. Nancy Pelosi is a socilaist. Joe Biden is a Socialist. John Delaney is a socialist.... etc... etc... etc...
---

pyresword posted...

I think the theory is that "racist" has become a buzzword in the eyes of American Conservatives, and when used by Liberals it looks bad because it seems like it's only trying to score political points rather than legitimate judgment.

I don't necessarily agree with the theory, but I believe that's the idea.

Edit: Or I should say--I actually do agree with the theory as presented here, but disagree with the notion that it's a fundamental limitation. (ie. You just have to say "he's a racist because X, Y, and Z")

Yeah I agree with both your theory and your conclusion that the solution is to just ignore the conservative viewpoint and keep talking about it. That's why it's frustrating.

Relevant article and quote:
https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/07/29/black-journalists-racial-politics-1440628

It is a myth that calling an action or speech or stereotype racist is an indictment of that persons soul, Herndon said at the BuzzFeed event. It is a myth that people have used to stop us from accurately describing words or actions or things that we know.

I think most Americans are vaguely against racism but there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what racism entails, so an earnest conversation should be beneficial.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

you can call trump both a racist and a bigot, but the CNN people are right that JUST calling him a racist isn't enough. if you do that, you're ignoring the discriminatory things he has said about women and other groups.

in this discussion, they specifically said you cant call him racist because it doesn't describe him and that bigot was a more appropriate word.

They used the word racist as a descriptive word toward a person only once in a 2 hour broadcast, and it was very specifically defined as a small group of donald trump supporters. And I'm pretty sure the term was a slip of the tongue even then.
---

You can't accurately call Trump a racist or bigot because neither word describes him. He is an opportunist who does whatever is best for himself.

Please note that racism drove Nazi Germany to do many things that were contrary to their power - like attacking the Soviet Union and executing their own scientists or forcing them to flee. That the actions were against their own interest shows that self-interest couldn't have been a motivation for doing them. But if you name even one thing Trump has done that is clearly not in his own interest, I'm all ears.
---

Ashethan posted...

Republicans: IF YOU CALL EVERYONE A RACIST, THE WORD LOSES ALL MEANING!

Also, Republicans: Bernie is a socialist. AOC is a socialist. Nancy Pelosi is a socilaist. Joe Biden is a Socialist. John Delaney is a socialist.... etc... etc... etc...

Republicans are speaking from experience. In the 50s calling someone a socialist could end their career just on a baseless and unsupported accusation. Now no one cares about the socialism charge anymore. Because it's been overused.
---

Also, CNN is awful. They don't report the news, and they aren't delivering entertainment either. Probably why their market share has shrunk so much!
---

if trump isn't a bigot, why doesn't he attack bernie as viciously as he attacks the squad?
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

if trump isn't a bigot, why doesn't he attack bernie as viciously as he attacks the squad?

Because he is counting on Bernie supporters to reelect him in 2020.
---

I think "racist" can be used to accurately describe someone who does racist things even if those things are motivated by self-interest.

Of course, I think there's also a reasonable chance that racism itself actually is a motivation for Trump. Though, I'm not 100% sold on that claim, and in any case I agree that self-interest is the primary factor.
---

Adjectives and nominalized adjectives don't have exclusivity unless they contradict each other. Bigotry and racism go hand in hand, Trump is both, just like how he is also thick as fuck.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Because he is counting on Bernie supporters to reelect him in 2020.

why the fuck would bernie supporters reelect trump? almost all of them hate him.
---

Racism loses almost all of its meaning if there's a better explanation for actions. For example, suppose we had data that a person said bad things about 90% of black people and 40% of white people. That person would seem racist, right? But then suppose we found out that that person said bad things about 100% of Democrats, and in fact, that person never said anything bad about any person, white or black, who wasn't a Democrat. Now it's clear that the person is not racist.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Because he is counting on Bernie supporters to reelect him in 2020.

why the fuck would bernie supporters reelect trump? almost all of them hate him.

For the same reason they elected him the first time around in 2016. Because he is an outsider, because he is sane, because he is fixing the economy.
---

pyresword posted...

Though, I'm not 100% sold on that claim, and in any case I agree that self-interest is the primary factor.

Honestly by 2019 I struggle to understand how anyone has any doubt of this, the dude's racism are a completely impulsive kneejerk reactions based around his own personal disposition towards races. Whether he also uses it for self-interest or not, he 100% holds his own racists beliefs.

Like I get you're not saying it isn't impossible or anything you just can't say for complete certainty... but I don't understand what's holding you back, it's quite blatant and has been out there for a long long time.
---

red sox 777 posted...

For the same reason they elected him the first time around in 2016. Because he is an outsider, because he is sane, because he is fixing the economy.

they voted for him in '16 because they were butthurt about the dems screwing over bernie, not for any of those reasons.

also, trump literally called bernie "crazy bernie sanders" on twitter yesterday. if he's so concerned about winning over bernie voters, why would he say that? just because he's not going after him as harshly as he goes after the squad (by which i mean that he's not splurging 30 tweets in a row about how he's racist, anti-semitic and someone who fucks family members) doesn't mean he's particularly nice to him.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

For the same reason they elected him the first time around in 2016. Because he is an outsider, because he is sane, because he is fixing the economy.

they voted for him in '16 because they were butthurt about the dems screwing over bernie, not for any of those reasons.

also, trump literally called bernie "crazy bernie sanders" on twitter yesterday. if he's so concerned about winning over bernie voters, why would he say that? just because he's not going after him as harshly as he goes after the squad (by which i mean that he's not splurging 30 tweets in a row about how he's racist, anti-semitic and someone who fucks family members) doesn't mean he's particularly nice to him.

I mean, it's Trump. We expect him to attack anyone who attacks him. And Bernie has been criticizing him. But Trump's attacks on Bernie have never been strong - they've been clearly half-hearted.

And no, Bernie voters only ever wanted what's best for the country/for the poor and lower middle class. Both economically and more importantly, spiritually in the sense of providing people with a sense of civic fulfillment, that their voices are heard. And Trump remains the only politician, other than Bernie and maybe Warren, who will listen.*

*I think AOC probably should be included in the group of politicians who listen, but Trump can get away with attacking her because her public persona doesn't quite match that. But if she moves back more to her original focus and doesn't engage too much with her Squad colleagues, I expect Trump's attacks on her will diminish as he realizes it doesn't help him to do so.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

they voted for him in '16 because they were butthurt about the dems screwing over bernie, not for any of those reasons.

Please don't feed into Red Sox's lies.

Only 1 in 10 Bernie supporters voted for Donald Trump. That's 10%. Less than Obama supporters, and less than Hillary supporters who voted for McCain.

Plus he said Trump was 'sane' and 'fixing the economy'. Nor is he an outsider. In fact all of that quoted is a lie.
---

Ashethan posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

they voted for him in '16 because they were butthurt about the dems screwing over bernie, not for any of those reasons.

Please don't feed into Red Sox's lies.

Only 1 in 10 Bernie supporters voted for Donald Trump. That's 10%. Less than Obama supporters, and less than Hillary supporters who voted for McCain.

Plus he said Trump was 'sane' and 'fixing the economy'. Nor is he an outsider. In fact all of that quoted is a lie.

1 in 10 is way more than enough to swing the election.
---

And obviously, a lot of those Bernie supporters previously supported Obama. Trump probably voted for Obama in 2008. And you know what? At least when he was campaigning, Obama listened to the people! It's unfortunate after he got into office, he listened too much to his careerist advisors, but I think most people can agree that his heart was in the right place.
---

And of course lots of Clinton supporters voted for McCain. They hate the left passionately, and there's almost no difference in policy between Clinton and McCain anyways!
---

red sox 777 posted...

Racism loses almost all of its meaning if there's a better explanation for actions.

Why? The purpose of labeling someone as a racist as I see it is to describe them as someone who willingly and intentionally treats some races better than others. I don't think the motivation is really relevant.

For example, suppose there's a head of a company who systematically pays black people less than white people--predicting that black people are more willing to work for the lower wage. I'm going to describe that person as a racist even if I thought that they personally held no racist beliefs at all and that it was just a profit-driven strategy to spend less money on labor.

GuessMyUserName posted...

pyresword posted...

Though, I'm not 100% sold on that claim, and in any case I agree that self-interest is the primary factor.

Honestly by 2019 I struggle to understand how anyone has any doubt of this, the dude's racism are a completely impulsive kneejerk reactions based around his own personal disposition towards races. Whether he also uses it for self-interest or not, he 100% holds his own racists beliefs.

Like I get you're not saying it isn't impossible or anything you just can't say for complete certainty... but I don't understand what's holding you back, it's quite blatant and has been out there for a long long time.

I don't think anything's "holding me back". It's that I'm unwilling to make the leap from "there's a good chance" to "yep, definitely". If I were forced to bet on one or the other I'd probably bet on Trump holding racist beliefs, but I still think that the available information we have is consistent with either hypothesis.
---

For example, suppose there's a head of a company who systematically pays black people less than white people--predicting that black people are more willing to work for the lower wage. I'm going to describe that person as a racist even if I thought that they personally held no racist beliefs at all and that it was just a profit-driven strategy to spend less money on labor.

This is a great example. The reason is that in this case, it is society which is racist, not that specific CEO. It does no good to attack an individual CEO for doing this, because if he changes, he will just be at a competitive disadvantage to his competitors who don't change. So society will reward actions that hurt black people and punish those who help them - this is a classic case of a racist society.

To change that, you need to change things at a societal level. And that starts by correctly identifying the problem where it is. And you know, we did do something about that in the 1960s - the Civil Rights Act.
---

Ah, the asinine its a problem with SOCIETY, so better not make even the slightest effort to fix the problem on a case by case basis defense. Same reason climate change deniers get away with selling us out to oil and coal companies.
---

pyresword posted...

I don't think anything's "holding me back". It's that I'm unwilling to make the leap from "there's a good chance" to "yep, definitely". If I were forced to bet on one or the other I'd probably bet on Trump holding racist beliefs, but I still think that the available information we have is consistent with either hypothesis.

I mean this goes back to what I was saying earlier. If you think Trump doesn't hold racist beliefs and is primarily motivated by self-interest, then the explanation becomes he is merely deliberately performing racism (saying racist rhetoric in speeches, promoting racist policies, and targeting certain political opponents based on race) in order to appeal to racists as a political strategy. I think that's a dumb explanation. The alternative is that Trump is accidentally repeatedly performing racism, because he holds racists beliefs.
---

red sox 777 posted...

To change that, you need to change things at a societal level. And that starts by correctly identifying the problem where it is. And you know, we did do something about that in the 1960s - the Civil Rights Act.

So you support reparations, right?
---

I think you guys are thinking too two-dimensionally. I think Trump is performing racism to rile up Democrats so they are never able to focus on substantive policies. Remember, we are playing 4D chess. You need to think a few moves ahead.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

To change that, you need to change things at a societal level. And that starts by correctly identifying the problem where it is. And you know, we did do something about that in the 1960s - the Civil Rights Act.

So you support reparations, right?

Yes.
---

red sox 777 posted...

I think you guys are thinking too two-dimensionally. I think Trump is performing racism to rile up Democrats so they are never able to focus on substantive policies. Remember, we are playing 4D chess. You need to think a few moves ahead.

So you support reparations but also dont think discussion of racism is a substantive policy issue?
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

I think you guys are thinking too two-dimensionally. I think Trump is performing racism to rile up Democrats so they are never able to focus on substantive policies. Remember, we are playing 4D chess. You need to think a few moves ahead.

So you support reparations but also dont think discussion of racism is a substantive policy issue?

Not the way the Democrats are doing it.
---

red sox 777 posted...

For example, suppose there's a head of a company who systematically pays black people less than white people--predicting that black people are more willing to work for the lower wage. I'm going to describe that person as a racist even if I thought that they personally held no racist beliefs at all and that it was just a profit-driven strategy to spend less money on labor.

This is a great example. The reason is that in this case, it is society which is racist, not that specific CEO. It does no good to attack an individual CEO for doing this, because if he changes, he will just be at a competitive disadvantage to his competitors who don't change. So society will reward actions that hurt black people and punish those who help them - this is a classic case of a racist society.

To change that, you need to change things at a societal level. And that starts by correctly identifying the problem where it is. And you know, we did do something about that in the 1960s - the Civil Rights Act.

The problem being larger than the individual CEO doesn't take away meaning from a factual description of the CEO's actions.

Stepping back from the hypothetical for a minute, it is is obviously possible on an intellectual level to distinguish between "one who believes some races are superior to others" and "one who treats some races better than others". My claim is that the word "racist" applies to both of these hypothetical cases. If what you're saying is that using such a definition dilutes or muddies the meaning of the word "racist", then that's actually something I agree with. I've thought for some time now that there is a need for society to adopt more precise terminology when discussing this issue.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Remember, we are playing 4D chess.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4" data-time="
---

pyresword posted...

red sox 777 posted...

For example, suppose there's a head of a company who systematically pays black people less than white people--predicting that black people are more willing to work for the lower wage. I'm going to describe that person as a racist even if I thought that they personally held no racist beliefs at all and that it was just a profit-driven strategy to spend less money on labor.

This is a great example. The reason is that in this case, it is society which is racist, not that specific CEO. It does no good to attack an individual CEO for doing this, because if he changes, he will just be at a competitive disadvantage to his competitors who don't change. So society will reward actions that hurt black people and punish those who help them - this is a classic case of a racist society.

To change that, you need to change things at a societal level. And that starts by correctly identifying the problem where it is. And you know, we did do something about that in the 1960s - the Civil Rights Act.

The problem being larger than the individual CEO doesn't take away meaning from a factual description of the CEO's actions.

Stepping back from the hypothetical for a minute, it is is obviously possible on an intellectual level to distinguish between "one who believes some races are superior to others" and "one who treats some races better than others". My claim is that the word "racist" applies to both of these hypothetical cases. If what you're saying is that using such a definition dilutes or muddies the meaning of the word "racist", then that's actually something I agree with. I've thought for some time now that there is a need for society to adopt more precise terminology when discussing this issue.

Yes, there should be a different word used for these cases. It's also important to distinguish between specific actions and the general moral worth of a person. For example, we don't generally call someone a "criminal" because they got a ticket one time for speeding. If we did, the word would rapidly lose its current meaning.
---

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/455342-democrats-introduce-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united

If we could start moving towards this actually happening, I would be ecstatic
---

oh I couldn't see the pyre response since he must've quoted someone else with it

but uh yeah I really don't see the reservation to make "the leap", it's not really the end of the world to have a definitive opinion based on ample and overflowing evidence - it's still an opinion statement you don't need to completely eliminate any semblance extraordinary incalculable doubt.
---

Yeah I responded to red sox in the top half of my post and you in the bottom half.

Forgot the new feature worked like that.
---

pyresword posted...

Stepping back from the hypothetical for a minute, it is is obviously possible on an intellectual level to distinguish between "one who believes some races are superior to others" and "one who treats some races better than others". My claim is that the word "racist" applies to both of these hypothetical cases. If what you're saying is that using such a definition dilutes or muddies the meaning of the word "racist", then that's actually something I agree with. I've thought for some time now that there is a need for society to adopt more precise terminology when discussing this issue.

We have different words for this but you still need to be able to use "racist" as a catch-all because it is a part of an interconnected phenomenon. It's a word that has both nuance and weight. I'd also argue that you'd downplay and confuse the issue by avoiding the term. You can look at the media doing just this by using terms like "racially charged" or "racially biased" when "racist" would suffice.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/455342-democrats-introduce-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united

If we could start moving towards this actually happening, I would be ecstatic

Oh please let this be a thing
---

Overturn Citizens United?

No way. And Democrats show their true colors by trying to overturn free speech. Thank God for our founding fathers.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/455342-democrats-introduce-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united

If we could start moving towards this actually happening, I would be ecstatic

Oh please let this be a thing

It's dead in the water. Not a single Republican anywhere will vote for it.
---

Our founding fathers are who allowed them to potentially amend the Constitution though
---

In the words of Harry Reid, it's dead on arrival.
---

Also, let's adopt the Biden Rule and the McConnell Rule as official Senate rules:

The Biden Rule: No Supreme Court nomination shall be considered by the Senate in the last year of a president's term in office.

The McConnell Rule: Any rule of the Senate can be ignored if ignoring the rule would favor the Republican Party.
---