Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd start here - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism #1 leads to #3 leads to #2. But there is a lot more to it. Not a simple concept. There is a lot of reading to do if you'd like to understand more. Can provide some links.
Isn't it increasing argued that the dictionary definition of racism is only one possible definition? I've heard it stated many times that the newer excepted definition involves the traditional aspect of racism coupled with the component of power. That is to say that racism is prejudice plus power. As an example, a minority in the US may be prejudiced or bigoted, but they cannot be racist since they lack the societal…
Make America Hate Again
331–340 of 368 posts
Re: Make America Hate Again
#332Earlier quoted context omitted.
Labels are extemely useful and important. You do not cede ground on framing. Even if all you can do is fight to a standstill, it is better than not fighting. Call it what it is. Everywhere you see it.
How many times will this need to be explained? Calling Trump racist or a Nazi isn't effective. It's preaching to the choir. You don't convince his supporters, and you alienate the moderates that believe Trump is moderate like them. This is deliberate. Trump deliberately made himself the motte-and-bailey candidate, so both moderates and extremists feel Trump is on their side. He's done that through double-messages and…
Re: Make America Hate Again
#333[...]
Instead of reading second hand sources, why not ACTUALLY READ what Trump said in his own words, 17 hours ago, right here:
“America is a proud nation of immigrants and we will continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression, but we will do so while protecting our own citizens and border. America has always been the land of the free and home of the brave. We will keep it free and keep it safe, as the media knows, but refuses to say. My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror. To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is not about religion - this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order. We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days. I have tremendous feeling for the people involved in this horrific humanitarian crisis in Syria. My first priority will always be to protect and serve our country, but as President I will find ways to help all those who are suffering.”
https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/posts/10158567643610725
I disagree with your unnecessarily vulgar phrasing (please don't do that), but vouched for your post because I think focussing on Trump's actual words can be a constructive way of establishing common ground. Presumably, you quote this because you think it shows that Trump is being intentionally misconstrued by the press. I agree --- many people are distorting what Trump actually says in a way that fits the narrative they want to create.
What you may not understand is that many people think it's best to ignore Trump's actual words because they are designed to mislead. Since they've already decided that Trump's actions are based on racism rather than an honest desire for national security, Trump's explanations are presumed in advance to be a cover story for this true goals.
This is essentially a stalemate, as nothing that Trump can say will serve to persuade those who are prejudiced against him. Where I think the media is being misleading is that they jump straight to this conclusion, rather than building a solid case that might convince those who do not already agree with them. They intentionally conflate their own interpretation of events as being Trump's stated goals.
With this in mind, I'd like to focus on what Trump is actually saying. If we take him at his word, is Trump's explanation here reasonable? Is the expressed intent unacceptable, or does it become unacceptable only if we assume the true meaning is contained in inaudible dogwhistles? How do we eliminate the "simple" explanation that Trump believes in what he's doing, and is doing it for the reasons he says he is?
Re: Make America Hate Again
#334[posting at the top level as responding to the dead post was not allowed] [...] Instead of reading second hand sources, why not ACTUALLY READ what Trump said in his own words, 17 hours ago, right here: “America is a proud nation of immigrants and we will continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression, but we will do so while protecting our own citizens and border. America has always been the land of the free…
Trump can say will serve to persuade those who are prejudiced against him.
nothing that Trump can say will serve to persuade those who are prejudiced against him.
Add to these the many conflicting statements Trump has made during the campaign. It's hard to figure out whether to trust that we understand what he means when he speaks, whether we are inclined to believe him or not. Even now, I've read comments from people who support Trump and those who don't expressing "Yes, it's a Muslim ban! Just like he said he'd do!" and "No, it's not a Muslim ban! Look at the Executive Order!"
I'm pretty unsophisticated. I'd like to be able to trust what people say, and that they say what they mean. With Trump I'm left very confused. I want to be able to trust what he says, so I can evaluate that against what actions he takes, and that it allows me to predict what he intends to do.
This is all independent of what's being added by the media.
If I'm left with not being able to trust what he says, where does that leave me? What's my rational response? Trust that his intent is good for American's as a whole (not just those who voted for him)? Given government in general, and the past actions of Trump himself and those he's chosen to govern with him, it's not clear that that's a rational choice.
Re: Make America Hate Again
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll reference the other thread about 'racism'; I don't know what 'alt-right' even means, so I don't know how to have an opinion about it.
who's fault is that? there's plenty of articles out there, pick one or read a few and synthesize. Or go straight to the source: reddit.com/r/altright (warning: contains explicit white nationalism/anti-semitism)
Re: Make America Hate Again
#336Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was with you almost until the "willful ignorance". I also guess yummyfajitas was with you until the second paragraph as well. My frustration is that your definition doesn't seem to be the one that one is jugded against but rather one that defines us all as racists because of the society we live in, because of our distant relatives etc. Because of this there seems to be no way to defend against this. And since I am…
Do you honestly believe he did not know the meaning of racism? That he was not being deliberately ignorant (the definition of willful ignorance) about racism to make a rhetorical point? Come on now. I didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings by calling out the obvious. I apologize.
A lot of people seem to use another definition though and that is what I think yummyfajitas tried to get them to admit.
For some reason only you seemed to want to put their definition in writing.
Re: Make America Hate Again
#337Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with his stance on this, and I think Trump and his latest executive orders are awful, but I also think that at this point, "hatred," "bigotry," and "racism" should be excised from public discourse. I totally disagree. How else do you want to describe the contents (and spirit) of this executive order? I think getting into mealy mouthed wiesel words and euphemisms for something that's clearly hateful and bigote…
You know that Obama de facto stopped - or at least severely limited - Iraqi immigration for 6 months in 2011. There was no outright ban, but the flow of Iraqis slowed significantly. Would you call it a hateful act as well?
Trump immediately stopped the entry of all foreign nationals, including green card holders returning from vacations and people who already had vaild visas.
That's very different. You could argue that the Administration didn't intend for the order to apply to GC holders, but the fact that the implementation of an executive order was different from its intention proves that it was poorly thought out.
Re: Make America Hate Again
#338Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh boy, not this again. The majority of the electoral college voted for this. That's how both Trump, and Hillary campaigned. To maximize electoral votes. There is no way to predict how it would have turned out, if it was based on popular vote.
Oh get the fuck out of here with that bullshit. The majority of the American people did not and still do not want Trump.
Re: Make America Hate Again
#339Internal american politics, not of interest. Flagged. When we were discussing the terrorist attacks in France, they were being consistently flagged. I complained about [1] the anglo-centrism of HN and dang replied this: > I'd caution against drawing general conclusions about HN from spot observations about what does/doesn't get flagged. People usually fall prey to cognitive biases when they do so, e.g. thinking that…
Re: Make America Hate Again
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it increasing argued that the dictionary definition of racism is only one possible definition? I've heard it stated many times that the newer excepted definition involves the traditional aspect of racism coupled with the component of power. That is to say that racism is prejudice plus power. As an example, a minority in the US may be prejudiced or bigoted, but they cannot be racist since they lack the societal…
Wouldn't your given definition be a working combination of the given definitions from Webster?