Aye. And the trick not to fall into it is to actually see what was said in context of the entire speech/statement it was said in. Another good example is when the far right kept repeating that Iran said it wants to "whipe Israel off the map" pushing that it means genocide. It didn't mean that at all if heard/read in context. But they didn't want to hear that.
-
Features
What is the evidence Trump is racist?
- Thread starter Will Wiley
- Start date
Aye. And the trick not to fall into it is to actually see what was said in context of the entire speech/statement it was said in. Another good example is when the far right kept repeating that Iran said it wants to "whipe Israel off the map" pushing that it means genocide. It didn't mean that at all if heard/read in context. But they didn't want to hear that.
whichphilosophy
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 6,803
- Basic Beliefs
- Energy is itself a Life form
I'm not aware either that Iran has an intent to wipe Israel off the map. As for Jews in Iran they are not persecuted as far as I know and have a representative in the Iranian parliament.
ronburgundy
Contributor
The apologists always try to take each statement in isolation and invent alternative meanings for it that might not be racist. But that is equal to isolating each piece of evidence that smoking causes cancer and finding the particular flaw with the methods for that study to discount it as evidence. There is no smoking gun proving smoking causes cancer, and yet not a rational person in the world doubts it. A different flaw/excuse needs to be given for each piece/type of evidence, while smoking causes cancer is the far simpler account that can explain every result.
Likewise, a different non-racist interpretation is required for each seemingly racist comment, and yet Trump being racist is the extremely simple and perfectly parsimonious account that explains all such statements. Plus, this same mechanism of him being racist also explains the words and actions of others connected to Trump. This includes people that know him privately who say he is extremely racist and worse human being than anyone imagines, despite those people (such as Penn Jillette) being strongly anti-Hillary, aligned with Trump economically, and generally very conservative in most areas other than the racism that has come to define the GOP.
The same parsimonious explanation also accounts fo why so many of his strongest supporters also show clear evidence of racism, and why THE most openly racist people in US support him.
And no, that is not "guilt by association". It is guilt by a overwhelming preponderance of the evidence, of which particular types of associations are merely part of it. And all associations are not equal. Some are completely incidental, such as two completely unconnected people getting on the same bus. But some are meaningful, such as when a people who have proven that they really only care about a single political issue (white power) endorse and strongly back a political candidate. It means that those people who have the most vested interest in figuring out who is on the side of their racist agenda have examined that candidates words and deeds and decided that is their man. When combined with the fact that racism is the only parsimonious explanation for that persons words and deeds, it creates an extremely strong body of converging evidence, despite any one isolated piece on its own being hand-waved with excuses.
In sum, the question is not whether any specific statment is clearly racist, but whether it is plausible the totality of all the statements, endorsements, and things true about Trump would all be true of a person who was not either racist or (arguably worse) deliberately trying to promote racism in order get the backing from racist he needs for his personal gain.
Note the harmful consequences of the latter the same as actually being racist, so it would actually be even more immoral and downright evil if Trump were dishonestly promoting racism for political ends.
Likewise, a different non-racist interpretation is required for each seemingly racist comment, and yet Trump being racist is the extremely simple and perfectly parsimonious account that explains all such statements. Plus, this same mechanism of him being racist also explains the words and actions of others connected to Trump. This includes people that know him privately who say he is extremely racist and worse human being than anyone imagines, despite those people (such as Penn Jillette) being strongly anti-Hillary, aligned with Trump economically, and generally very conservative in most areas other than the racism that has come to define the GOP.
The same parsimonious explanation also accounts fo why so many of his strongest supporters also show clear evidence of racism, and why THE most openly racist people in US support him.
And no, that is not "guilt by association". It is guilt by a overwhelming preponderance of the evidence, of which particular types of associations are merely part of it. And all associations are not equal. Some are completely incidental, such as two completely unconnected people getting on the same bus. But some are meaningful, such as when a people who have proven that they really only care about a single political issue (white power) endorse and strongly back a political candidate. It means that those people who have the most vested interest in figuring out who is on the side of their racist agenda have examined that candidates words and deeds and decided that is their man. When combined with the fact that racism is the only parsimonious explanation for that persons words and deeds, it creates an extremely strong body of converging evidence, despite any one isolated piece on its own being hand-waved with excuses.
In sum, the question is not whether any specific statment is clearly racist, but whether it is plausible the totality of all the statements, endorsements, and things true about Trump would all be true of a person who was not either racist or (arguably worse) deliberately trying to promote racism in order get the backing from racist he needs for his personal gain.
Note the harmful consequences of the latter the same as actually being racist, so it would actually be even more immoral and downright evil if Trump were dishonestly promoting racism for political ends.
whichphilosophy
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 6,803
- Basic Beliefs
- Energy is itself a Life form
You didn't actually say something there to suggest he is racist.
laughing dog
Contributor
The historical record is easily accessible and has been reproduced in this thread a number of times. For example, posts 4 and 10.
ronburgundy
Contributor
The list of countless things already presented on this board provide converging evidence that he is racist beyond a reasonable doubt. I was just explaining why your efforts to dismiss these things completely fail and reveals a basic intellectual incompetence at evidence-based reasoning that you curiously don't seem to suffer from when the evidence happens to support what your faith leads you to believe.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 41,246
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
J842P
Veteran Member
Ironically, Iran is probably the most welcoming country towads Jews among Islamic-majority middle eastern countries. Of course, America is allied wtih the least tolerant...
whichphilosophy
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 6,803
- Basic Beliefs
- Energy is itself a Life form
You said
The 2nd link in my post has numerous instances of Trump's alleged racism before he ran for POTUS, such as.....
You quoted the NY Rag and VOX etc which quoted hearsay and in the end produced nothing to say he himself is racist. Another straw
whichphilosophy
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 6,803
- Basic Beliefs
- Energy is itself a Life form
It allows one Jewish representative to be elected to its parliament.
whichphilosophy
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 6,803
- Basic Beliefs
- Energy is itself a Life form
A half baked poem is not a substitute for evidence.
- - - Updated - - -
Did you see the response?
- - - Updated - - -
The extremes of left and rights are flip sides of the same coin.
whichphilosophy
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 6,803
- Basic Beliefs
- Energy is itself a Life form
Like the Democrats most Republicans are not racists. The ultra left are pumping out a lot of drivel that voting for Trump is automatically racist.
blastula
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 9,964
- Gender
- Late for dinner
- Basic Beliefs
- Gnostic atheist
If you're a racist, you are more likely voted for Trump and with great enthusiasm. And a vote for Trump in competent knowledge of the man's public actions and character was, if not out of explicit support for racism, a vote to disregard his racism, misogyny and other forms of bigotry, which is not much different. The man mocks the disabled. He is a horrible human.
fast
Contributor
If you voted for Trump and with great enthusiasm, are you more likely a racist? Just curious if it works that way too.
Nice Squirrel
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2004
- Messages
- 6,083
- Location
- Minnesota
- Basic Beliefs
- Only the Nice Squirrel can save us.
What about assuming a Black reporter can set up meetings for him with congress critters?
Elixir
Made in America
More likely than what? If you voted for Trump and with great enthusiasm, it's more likely you're a racist than if you voted for Obama with great enthusiasm.
A higher proportion of Americans appear to be obsessed with 'race' than are people of most countries, and the American Right is very markedly so, but I don't think the Fat Man is interested in anything but feeding his own vanity, and will use anything to get attention.
fast
Contributor
than not.
If you voted for Trump and with great enthusiasm, it's more likely you're a racist than not a racist?