Is Donald Trump racist?

[Falvlun]

Sounds like a double standard there.

It's a diverse group, & not all want things positive.

/snip/

But you'd attribute these beliefs to all who march with them.
You haven't supported this claim

Do you not see the difference between beliefs espoused by a group as a whole, and those espoused by singular members within a group?

If you march with the KKK, you know you are marching with a group who believes that white people are better than all the rest and that other races should be exterminated, removed, or subservient.

If you march with BLM, you do not march with a group that espouses cop murder. You may inadvertently march with individuals who hold such beliefs but such interactions are unavoidable unless you know the beliefs of every single person you interact with.

It's unreasonable to hold people accountable for things they don't know (like the awful beliefs of individuals), but it is reasonable to hold people accountable for the things they do know (like the awful beliefs propagated by a group).

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you not see the difference between beliefs espoused by a group as a whole, and those espoused by singular members within a group?

I certainly do.
But I oppose equating non-members of a group with the group just because they attend the same march.
Also, there's some mischief in ignoring some diversity within some groups, eg, white nationalists.

If you march with the KKK, you know you are marching with a group who believes that white people are better than all the rest and that other races should be exterminated, removed, or subservient.

And if you march for some cause, & such groups are there too, this doesn't mean you all believe the same things.

If you march with BLM, you do not march with a group that espouses cop murder.

But since some have espoused such, to march with them would be incriminating....so some might say.
(I don't.)

You may inadvertently march with individuals who hold such beliefs but such interactions are unavoidable unless you know the beliefs of every single person you interact with.
It's unreasonable to hold people accountable for things they don't know (like the awful beliefs of individuals), but it is reasonable to hold people accountable for the things they do know (like the awful beliefs propagated by a group).

I'd hold people accountable for primarily what they as individuals do,
and secondarily for beliefs of groups they openly support.
Where & with whom they choose to march could raise questions.

 

[Falvlun]

I certainly do.
But I oppose equating non-members of a group with the group just because they attend the same march.
Also, there's some mischief in ignoring some diversity within some groups, eg, white nationalists.

And if you march for some cause, & such groups are there too, this doesn't mean you all believe the same things.

But since some have espoused such, to march with them would be incriminating....so some might say.
(I don't.)

I'd hold people accountable for primarily what they as individuals do,
and secondarily for beliefs of groups they openly support.
Where & with whom they choose to march could raise questions.

I think I understand the distinction you are making: the Nazi's and BLM could march together to protest some common enemy unrelated to the unsavory beliefs either group might hold.

I could see that being legitimate.

It would have to be very clear, though, that the protest wasn't for white supremacy. I don't think the Charlottesville protest had such a clear distinction. Without it, I don't think people should be surprised if others lump them in with the Nazi's, either as a sympathizer or as someone who doesn't really think there's much wrong with what they espouse.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think I understand the distinction you are making: the Nazi's and BLM could march together to protest some common enemy unrelated to the unsavory beliefs either group might hold.

I could see that being legitimate.

It would have to be very clear, though, that the protest wasn't for white supremacy. I don't think the Charlottesville protest had such a clear distinction. Without it, I don't think people should be surprised if others lump them in with the Nazi's, either as a sympathizer or as someone who doesn't really think there's much wrong with what they espouse.

What can I do with you when you're being understanding & reasonable?

 

[Underhill]

Bold claim.
But not backed up by a single example of successful socialism.
I offer The USSR, The PRC, Cuba, & N Korea.

Sure, and that is not what modern socialist want. It's another of your false equivalencies you have become notorious for. Plenty of countries throughout Europe have had successful socialist democracies of the kind modern American socialist want.

Sounds like a double standard there.

No, it sounds like every group that ever exist. The difference is that the Nazi's very doctrine is evil, while this is a fringe few from a group (the BLM) with a generally positive intent, even if they are sometimes misguided.

It's a diverse group, & not all want things positive.

It is a group with a website and a list of goals which are clearly spelled out. But like the NRA, their membership is diverse, yes.

I disagree with them, & find their idea of "political reform" horrible.
What they'd effect is no better than white supremacist goals.

Examples?

But you'd attribute these beliefs to all who march with them.
You haven't supported this claim.

To Nazi's yes. To anyone who would march next to their flag? I don't care. Only idiots and the evil march under that banner and those like it.

Tis cognitive dissonance to not see where socialism & communism lead,
& to hold progressive values, but not condemn advocacy for such eventualities.

Tis idiocy to claim that American democratic socialism is the equivalent of communism. Very few are aiming for that. Most want no more than what our neighbors to the north or across the pond have. But keep cranking out those false equivalencies and we will continue to not take you seriously.

 

[Underhill]

It would have to be very clear, though, that the protest wasn't for white supremacy. I don't think the Charlottesville protest had such a clear distinction. Without it, I don't think people should be surprised if others lump them in with the Nazi's, either as a sympathizer or as someone who doesn't really think there's much wrong with what they espouse.

It was under the auspices of defending a monument. But it was led by and organized by David Duke. It is not as though some fringe nazi's and clan members showed up, they were front and center in the march.

I don't care if your goals are to help kitties out of trees, if you show up and realize you would be marching with nazi's and clan members, in full regalia, I would turn around and go home. As would any decent human being.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure, and that is not what modern socialist want. It's another of your false equivalencies you have become notorious for. Plenty of countries throughout Europe have had successful socialist democracies of the kind modern American socialist want.

Your mischievous use of the false false equivalency is an obvious fail.
I'm not criticizing those faux "socialist" Bernie Sanders types, who'd
keep capitalism around in order to fund social welfare. No, when I
said "socialist", I refer to those who advocate for the real thing.

Are you employing this red herring to deflect from the point I'm making?

No, it sounds like every group that ever exist. The difference is that the Nazi's very doctrine is evil, while this is a fringe few from a group (the BLM) with a generally positive intent, even if they are sometimes misguided.

The error is in painting non-Nazis (eg, white nationalists) with one broad brush.

It is a group with a website and a list of goals which are clearly spelled out. But like the NRA, their membership is diverse, yes.

Well....there you go.
Even Democrats & Republicans have some decent sorts in the fold.

Examples?

I've already given bad examples of socialism.

To Nazi's yes. To anyone who would march next to their flag? I don't care. Only idiots and the evil march under that banner and those like it.

You seem overly eager to lump different people together (when convenient).

Tis idiocy to claim that American democratic socialism is the equivalent of communism. Very few are aiming for that. Most want no more than what our neighbors to the north or across the pond have. But keep cranking out those false equivalencies and we will continue to not take you seriously.

You sure do love to use erroneous inferences to cry "False equivalency! False equivalency!".
I recommend looking up the definition of "socialism" in several dictionaries.
You'll then see how I use the word.

 

[metis]

But keep cranking out those false equivalencies and we will continue to not take you seriously.

Don't expect any changes in his behavior on this, let me tell ya, and I think it's quite obvious why he feels so comfortable defending Trump's depravity that's being displayed on almost a daily basis.

 

[Revoltingest]

Don't expect any changes in his behavior on this, let me tell ya, and I think it's quite obvious why he feels so comfortable defending Trump's depravity that's being displayed on almost a daily basis.

I notice that you like to issue slights indirectly...kibitzing & canoodling with
your ilk, rather than addressing me directly. Oh, well....I can live with that.
But be careful....3rd person commentary is a rule violation.

You're being a tad dishonest with the claim of defending Trump. What's
really going on is that you've utterly failed to defend your claim that he's "racist".
I've called him sexist, prejudiced, bigoted & boorish. I can offer sound
objective evidence for each. It seems you're caught in an accusation you
can't support, but neither can you admit your over-reach.

 

[Underhill]

You're mischievous use of the false false equivalency is an obvious fail.
I'm not criticizing those faux "socialist" Bernie Sanders types, who'd
keep capitalism around in order to fund social welfare. No, when I
said "socialist", I refer to those who advocate for the real thing.

So you are talking about a group that doesn't really exist in this country as an example of an equivalent of the Nazi's? Got it.

Are you employing this red herring to deflect from the point I'm making?

I assumed that you were talking about the only socialist that actually exist in any numbers in this country. Silly me.

The error is in painting non-Nazis (eg, white nationalists) with one broad brush.

Right, because those marching with nazis aren't all scum.... got it.

Well....there you go.
Even Democrats & Republicans have some decent sorts in the fold.

Have I ever claimed otherwise?

I've already given bad examples of socialism.

Yes, you did. You gave examples that do not exist in this country. Terrible examples. Good job.

You seem overly eager to lump different people together (when convenient).

Nope, only when they are led by one man, a former leader of the KKK, and march with dozens of flags that label them as scum.

You sure do love to use erroneous inferences to cry "False equivalency! False equivalency!".
I recommend looking up the definition of "socialism" in several dictionaries.
You'll then see how I use the word.

I know exactly what Socialism is. Or at least the broad range of things that are labeled as such.

 

[Revoltingest]

So you are talking about a group that doesn't really exist in this country as an example of an equivalent of the Nazi's? Got it.

You're saying real socialists don't even exist, eh.
Got it.
The rest doesn't inspire response.

 

[Underhill]

You're saying real socialists don't even exist, eh.
Got it.
The rest doesn't inspire response.

In any numbers worth talking about, in this country? Of course there isn't. We've been indoctrinated since elementary school about the evils of fascist socialism, ie. communism. I've never met one. Their numbers make the supremacist look downright mainstream.

Now if you want to talk about Bernie Sanders supporters, by all means, explain to me how his message is inevitably going to destroy the country.

 

[idav]

I notice that you like to issue slights indirectly...kibitzing & canoodling with
your ilk, rather than addressing me directly. Oh, well....I can live with that.
But be careful....3rd person commentary is a rule violation.

You're being a tad dishonest with the claim of defending Trump. What's
really going on is that you've utterly failed to defend your claim that he's "racist".
I've called him sexist, prejudiced, bigoted & boorish. I can offer sound
objective evidence for each. It seems you're caught in an accusation you
can't support, but neither can you admit your over-reach.

With that list certainly Trump qualifies as racist, bigotry towards different ethnicity or people from other countries counts.

 

[Revoltingest]

In any numbers worth talking about, in this country? Of course there isn't. We've been indoctrinated since elementary school about the evils of fascist socialism, ie. communism. I've never met one. Their numbers make the supremacist look downright mainstream.

Diverting from the issue with irrelevant quantification, eh?

Now if you want to talk about Bernie Sanders supporters, by all means, explaian to me how his message is inevitably going to destroy the country.

Did you not read the part about Bernie being a SINO (socialist in name only)?

 

[Revoltingest]

With that list certainly Trump qualifies as racist, bigotry towards different ethnicity or people from other countries counts.

If it ain't about race, it ain't "racism".

 

[Underhill]

Diverting from the issue with irrelevant quantification, eh?

Right, I'm not allowed to point out the fallacy in your diversion. Got it.

Did you not read the part about Bernie being a SINO (socialist in name only)?

Bernie is a socialist in the vein of the new European model. But I guess you know better than his tens of millions of followers, or the tens of millions of Europeans who think of themselves as such. Clearly because the top definition in the dictionary says that "Socialism is when the government owns the means of production" and you stopped reading there, you know better than all of them.

 

[idav]

If it ain't about race, it ain't "racism".

The criteria is there, it's based on race OR ethnicity.

Racism - Wikipedia

Ethnic group - Wikipedia

 

[Revoltingest]

Got it.

You say that a lot.
I don't think so.

 

[Revoltingest]

The criteria is there, it's based on race OR ethnicity.

"Criteria" is plural.
Match your verb!

Racism - Wikipedia
Ethnic group - Wikipedia

I'm an old fogie.
I won't adopt new fangled perversions of such words.
But were I to do so, then even hating white nationalists would be "racist".
See how silly your embroadening of the definition is?

 

[metis]

With that list certainly Trump qualifies as racist, bigotry towards different ethnicity or people from other countries counts.

Yes, and I have quoted definitions from Wikipedia and linked it three times here on this thread showing that "racism" simply isn't just about "race".