redcarpet wrote:Blackjack here a few months age denied in a debate with me, that the use of the n-word is racist towards blacks. YEAH!
Black people use the n-word all the time.
redcarpet wrote:I won't bother asking him if a non-white used the phrase 'whitey' or 'white boy' would he consider that anti-white bigotry. OF COURSE HE WOULD!
I've never found it troubling. I am very white. If that's all they ever see over some degree of time, I would probably find it bothersome. I dated a Mexican gal once who called me "white boy," and I thought it was funny.
redcarpet wrote:He and a few other closet Nazis want James Fields released for his conviction of murdering a protester at Charlottesville by running over them with his car!
I've never said any such thing. I've said I think James Fields is mentally ill, and I think people like him should not be running around free.
redcarpet wrote:Neo-Nazi material was found in his house and no, no sign of mental difficulties!
He had a history of mental problems. That he was found competent to stand trial is a legal question, not a medical one.
redcarpet wrote:It was cold blooded murder!
More like hot-blooded. It was a charged situation.
BigSteve wrote:It's a shame that you intentionally choose to be dishonest by not including the entire quote.
I already put all of his tweets up so that everyone can see the ruse.
noemon wrote:Intentional dishonesty is constantly accusing your interlocutor with ad-homs without offering a shred of an argument.
He just argued that you deliberately misquoted Trump, which you did. I already provided Trump's actual statement. You just rephrased Trump's words into what you wanted Trump to say.
noemon wrote:There is nothing in the rest of the text that alters the meaning of the text I quoted and if you believe there is explain how.
First, Trump specifically targeted "progressive" Congresswomen, which is a small subset of female Congresswomen. So it obviously wouldn't include Nancy Pelosi, or even some minority Congresswomen. For example, Trump is very obviously not talking about black Congresswomen like Tracey Plaskett, Donna Christian-Christensen, Lauren Underwood, Lucy McBath, Jahana Hayes, Brenda Jones, Lisa Blunt Rochester, Val Demings, Brenda Lawrence, Robin Kelly, Alma Adams, Bonnie Coleman, Joyce Beatty, Teri Sewell, Marcia Fudge, and so forth. He was being very specific. If he were just being anti-black for example, he wouldn't have specified so many qualifiers which you keep dropping. He also didn't just say leave the United States and never come back. That's what your misquote implies. Dropping qualifying context is dishonest. For example, Trump is not talking about Senator Mazie Hirono or Congresswoman Norma Judith Torres who are both immigrants. Everybody else seems to know this but you.
noemon wrote:I did not quote Trump's rant against their countries of origin because it is not relevant to my argument
If your argument is about what Trump said, what he said is relevant to your argument. You are just deliberately dropping context to make it appear that Trump said something he didn't say, so you can justify feeling outraged and hope that you can get other people to feel outraged as well.
BigSteve wrote:By not including the entire quote, it's taken out of context, which is exactly what you intended...
Affirmative.
Pants-of-dog wrote:For those who claim Trump’s words were not racist, can you explain how?
Race clearly wasn't the basis of his comments, or he would not have used "progressive" as a qualifier. He also would not have used "Congresswomen" as a qualifier.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Obviously, you cannot explain how these comments are not racist.
Does someone else want to try?
IbidPants-of-dog wrote:Also, many of us have had to deal with racism, and this was one of the racist things that was said to me by an openly racist person.
Somebody told you to go back where you came from, fix the extant problems, then come back to Canada and show Canadians how it is done?
Pants-of-dog wrote:I have demonstrated how the comments are racist by providing a source that shows how that phrase has been used throughout US history as a racist attack against immigrants.
If it's asserting racism, it's a poorly researched and poorly written article. My grandparents were immigrants. My grandmother was from Ireland. A lot of Irish were not treated well. Nevertheless, they are white. They aren't a different race. Ethnic bigotry is a separate question from racial bigotry. As a little help for you, Brit Hume used the proper term that Trump's ruse contained elements of "nativism." That's the word you should be using. However, again, Trump did not include all immigrant members of Congress in his quip.
BigSteve wrote:Your argument fails because you, and other Trump haters, fail to put his comments into the proper context. If you fail to do that, there's no reason in the world to approach any conversation with you in a serious manner...
Trump trolled them good this time. Why would he suggest having Nancy Pelosi make the travel arrangements for what would be yet another pointless Congressional junket otherwise? He's a master at this sort of thing.
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:What I'm saying is that Trump is exploiting a common sentiment.
It's especially prevalent in the blue collar working class voters who have been adversely affected by illegal immigration and outsourcing. This is the demographic that delivered Trump's otherwise improbable 2016 victory--a political inside straight if there ever was one, and the biggest electoral upset in American History, I believe.
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Keeping the people who are more controversial (especially with swing voters) in the public eye is probably helpful.
It is. However, it also forces Democrats to replay the "deplorables" sentiment expressed by Hillary Clinton about blue collar working class people who ended up voting for Trump. It's a deep psychological game, as I noted earlier.
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:A marxist won't give you the "my truth, your truth" gobbledygook.
A traditional Marxist won't. The cultural Marxist perhaps deserves a different name, because that philosophy relies on post-modern philosophy rather than modernism or materialism.
annatar1914 wrote:Seems to me that the only proper safeguard against ''racism'' and even class inequality to start with in a discussion is beginning with the common sense truth throughout time of our monogenetic rather than polygenetic origins as human beings, that we human beings today came from one set of original ancestral human parents. Anything else is racist or lends cover for belief in racism and class inequality.
Then the debate will be over whether their names were really Adam and Eve.
Palmyrene wrote:What's far more likely is that a bunch of humans were born from our closest genetic relatives as per evolution. The egg came before the chicken.
The genetic record suggests those of us further North were getting it on with Neanderthals, and we have some residual Neanderthal DNA. There is some genetic difference, like it or not.
annatar1914 wrote:Evolution is a racist belief system created by 19th century British White Imperialist bigots, and I for one have nothing to do with it's ''magic plus time creates life and progress'' hocus pocus.
I for one like Intelligent Design, not because I think it's 100% right, but because Evolution is incomplete, obviously. What I find fascinating about adherents of Evolution is that they are adamant that it is correct, until we apply it to human beings.
Godstud wrote:Science is not philosophy.
It's the philosophy of nature and natural phenomena. It just strictly disregards metaphysics.
Palmyrene wrote:Actually historically you are wrong about that (science is natural philosophy after all).
Damn. Now I have to take you more seriously...
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden