I am not so worried about the administration. The White House will not go Nazi or even close, but it is possible for the GOP to try to reverse some of the trends of inclusion of the marginalized and minorities.
No, implicitly, I'm not arguing that at all. I'm disputing the basis for the claim that Bannon's claim in that particular instance was a racist claim. I don't know whether it was. As I said, it might have been racist, or nationalist, or both. Claiming it's racist as so many left-wing outlets do is an instance of jumping to conclusions, having a belief on insufficient evidence, etc. That in no way is an argument - implicit or not - that Bannon simply panders to racists, etc.; it's a point about epistemically irrational beliefs and accusations - which would remain the case regardless of whether Bannon actually is a racist or a nationalist, or both a racist and a nationalist.
Do you actually think your sarcasm provides an appropriate response to any and/or all of the points made in the post I linked to, in which there is a photo of Trump eating that, alongside other things?
This is just a tiny representative sample, but the rest is very similar. Trump has gone from campaign stop to campaign stop talking about how much he likes and respects minorities and wants to fight for them.
And if you believe he’s lying, fine. Yet I notice that people accusing Trump of racism use the word “openly” like a tic. He’s never just “racist” or “white supremacist”. He’s always “openly racist” and “openly white supremacist”. Trump is openly racist, openly racist, openly racist, openly racist, openly racist, openly racist, openly racist. Trump is running on pure white supremacy, has thrown off the last pretense that his campaign is not about bigotry, has the slogan Make American Openly White Supremacist Again, is an openly white supremacist nominee, etc, etc, etc. And I’ve seen a few dozen articles like this where people say that “the bright side of a Trump victory is that finally America admitted its racism out in the open so nobody can pretend it’s not there anymore.”
This, I think, is the first level of crying wolf. What if, one day, there is a candidate who hates black people so much that he doesn’t go on a campaign stop to a traditionally black church in Detroit, talk about all of the contributions black people have made to America, promise to fight for black people, and say that his campaign is about opposing racism in all its forms? What if there’s a candidate who does something more like, say, go to a KKK meeting and say that black people are inferior and only whites are real Americans?
We might want to use words like “openly racist” or “openly white supremacist” to describe him. And at that point, nobody will listen, because we wasted “openly white supremacist” on the guy who tweets pictures of himself eating a taco on Cinco de Mayo while saying “I love Hispanics!”
Do you actually think that your description of the article, after your "that's right", actually is a reasonable interpretation of what the article says?In case you want to know what was in Angra's link that Angra posted earlier:
This is just a tiny representative sample, but the rest is very similar. Trump has gone from campaign stop to campaign stop talking about how much he likes and respects minorities and wants to fight for them.
And if you believe he’s lying, fine. Yet I notice that people accusing Trump of racism use the word “openly” like a tic. He’s never just “racist” or “white supremacist”. He’s always “openly racist” and “openly white supremacist”. Trump is openly racist, openly racist, openly racist, openly racist, openly racist, openly racist, openly racist. Trump is running on pure white supremacy, has thrown off the last pretense that his campaign is not about bigotry, has the slogan Make American Openly White Supremacist Again, is an openly white supremacist nominee, etc, etc, etc. And I’ve seen a few dozen articles like this where people say that “the bright side of a Trump victory is that finally America admitted its racism out in the open so nobody can pretend it’s not there anymore.”
This, I think, is the first level of crying wolf. What if, one day, there is a candidate who hates black people so much that he doesn’t go on a campaign stop to a traditionally black church in Detroit, talk about all of the contributions black people have made to America, promise to fight for black people, and say that his campaign is about opposing racism in all its forms? What if there’s a candidate who does something more like, say, go to a KKK meeting and say that black people are inferior and only whites are real Americans?
We might want to use words like “openly racist” or “openly white supremacist” to describe him. And at that point, nobody will listen, because we wasted “openly white supremacist” on the guy who tweets pictures of himself eating a taco on Cinco de Mayo while saying “I love Hispanics!”
That's right, we can't take Trump's claims he wants to register Muslims or hold illegal Mexicans in detention centers seriously because he had someone take his photo with a taco salad in front of him while saying he loved Mexicans. If we use "scare tactics" against the masses about Trump they won't be smart enough to one day recognize an actual Hitler because of us. It'll be our fault because people can't think for themselves.
Never mind that when I go to my Republican brother-in-law's house today for Thanksgiving, if I tell him that we're NOT registering Muslims because the Trump campaign wants to be inclusive by doing such photo, he will be quite disappointed. And no he's not a member of the KKK or formally a white nationalist, but like a lot of Republicans, he'd be all for those polices and he's racist. Yes, he's "White," he's "nationalistic," and he's racist, but he's not a Nazi and there are way more people like him than someone in Buenos Aires might imagine.
Unless Bannon is a complete idiot, he had to know he was pandering to racists. Let's assume Bannon is not a racist - that the people accusing him of being a racist are wrong. If they are wrong, he is simply a pander to racists. Which brings me to my question which you ignored. Which is worse - an honest racist or someone who panders to racists? IMO, if Bannon is not a racist but a panderer to racists, that makes him even a more despicable human being than if he were an actual racist.
The OP goes with a link. I reply with another link, with good arguments and evidence.
But that assumes that he was pandering to racists. Pandering is deliberate. If he made the statement because he believes it and wanted to tell Trump that he disagrees (which does not imply he's a racist) and some racists also liked it, that's not pandering. Maybe he was pandering to racists. Or maybe to nationalists. Or maybe to both. I don't know.laughing dog said:
I was talking about his statement about people from Asia or from South Asia. Even if he is a racist against, say, Black people (who aren't a race, but in closest the racial sense), or an ethinicist against other groups, that doesn't give much support to the claim that he's a racist against "Asians" (who aren't a race, but whatever).laughing dog said:
I don't know that he was pandering to racists, but your question is irrelevant. The answer depends on the circumstances. As it stands, there is insufficient info to tell. For example, why is the racist a racist? What does his racism consist in? Why is the panderer pandering?laughing dog said:
That's not my point. My point is that there is insufficient evidence that Bannon's statement was a racist statement. I don't know how good the evidence for Bannon's racism against Black people is - but it may well be is a lot better than the evidence for Bannon's racism against Asians. Regardless, I was talking about his statement, not about whether he's a racist.laughing dog said:
I don't know that his statement was an instance of pandering to racists. But that said, I do agree that he should not be in the US government. Neither should Trump, for that matter. Yet, it remains the case that one should not believe that Trump has a White Nationalist agenda. There is clearly insufficient evidence to believe that - and moreover, he probably does not have that agenda.laughing dog said:
Do you actually agree with his replies?
Either it was deliberate or he is a complete idiot. You choose.
The evidence is clear. If you cannot see it, then further discussion is pointless.
No, there is not.
All irrelevant to the issue of the whether he was pandering or not.
That is your opinion, not an observable fact.
No, there is not. There is insufficient evidence in your view that Bannon meant it to be racist.
It is not an objective fact of the matter as to whether the evidence is sufficient. That is a matter of opinion.
No, that's not at all reasonable. If he knew that some racists would like it, but didn't say it because of that but because of nationalism, he was neither an idiot nor pandering to them.laughing dog said:
It's clear that you and many other leftists are jumping to conclusion.laughing dog said:
Yes, there is.laughing dog said:
My reply " For example, why is the racist a racist? What does his racism consist in? Why is the panderer pandering?", was not a reply to your claim that he was pandering or he's an idiot, or to the issue of whether he was pandering. It was a reply to your question about who is worse, of course. You're now changing the subject.laughing dog said:
Whatever you mean by "observable", it's a fact. I'm making a proper assessment based on the available info. You're not. You are right about one thing: no point in talking anymore (other than addressing new mistakes on your part, perhaps). Too much out-of-place hostility, too much epistemic irrationality on your part.laughing dog said:
Actually that makes him both an idiot and a panderer.
All of which are irrelevant to the issue of pandering.
Not really.
It is your opinion that it is a proper assessment. While it is a fact that you made an assessment, it is not fact that your assessment is a fact or that it is a fact that there is an objective standard for sufficient evidence. Your claim is either epistemicly irrational or epistemicly confused.
You clearly have no clue what you are posting about. The available information about Steve Bannon is easy to access - just google Steve Bannon racist comments.
No, obviously (well, obviously to someone reading carefully and being epistemically rational).laughing dog said:
For those interested in the exchange.laughing dog said:
you said:
me said:
you said:
me said:
And (as a reply to " It was a reply to your question about who is worse, of course. ").you said:
Are you just being irrational, or is your behavior deliberate?you said:
No, you clearly have no clue what I'm posting about. You should know better.laughing dog said:
Of course, that does not remotely establish that when Bannon made the statement about CEOs, he was pandering to racists. Even if he is an anti-Jewish racist (though Judaism is not a race, but whatever), that does not imply he is an anti-Asian racist (not that Asians are a race, either, but never mind).laughing dog said:
laughing dog said:
Right-wingers usually classify me as a left-winger, liberal, etc., when they know some of my positions, and they tend to question my motivations, assuming some evil leftist agenda.laughing dog said:
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t785729-5/
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t502629-3/
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t551502-18/
