noemon wrote:If you repeat these nonsense 200 times you might actually convince yourself.
I don't have to repeat it even once. I posted Trump's actual words for you and everyone else to see. He did not mention anyone by name, by race, or by ethnicity. He did mention four progressive women. So you could have charged him with sexism or disdain for progressivism, which could have stuck. Trump baited you into making the leaps in logic you made. Your conclusions came from your mind, not from Trump's words. Trump is raising support among modernists while thrashing post-modernists. His poll numbers went up among his supporters.
noemon wrote:It is highly doubtful that you are convincing anyone however as even the pro-Trump conservatives in here have already agreed that his tweets mean: "shut up and go back where you came from".
Once again, you are taking someone else's words and making them mean something other than what they said. I posted Trump's words so that people can review what he actually said, not what the media deliberately and mendaciously mis-reported. It's this practice why the mainstream media has lost its legitimacy. The days of Walter Cronkite are long gone. Today, people look at a news anchor and assume s/he is lying about something.
noemon wrote:I quoted your claim that these women have made ethnic slurs against the Jews.
Again, it's already well known. If the media in Europe doesn't cover it, take it up with the media in Europe.
noemon wrote:I do know that he is a white American person because I know him in person, there are also others who know him in person.
I don't see why someone's background would make any difference in a text-based forum, but that's because I am not a relativist. I don't know SpecialOlympian personally, but like Libertarian353, he makes so many contrary claims it's impossible to derive who or what he is from his text. Since he claims to be an LSD user, I assume he's simply hallucinating most of the time as he seems to find everything funny, which I interpret as pseudo-bulbar affect disorder.
noemon wrote:I also told you before that if a Black person made such a thread about Black people I would not consider it racist just like I do not consider white people(Special Olympian) satirising other white supremacist people to ridicule white supremacist logic and expose you as the true whiners and outrage promoters that you truly are.
That's a post-modern view. The modern view is that the law applies equally to all people, so act and intent are what matters. Someone's background or identity does not.
noemon wrote:You utilise the argument that because Trump has black friends he can never ever be racist or make racist statements while at the same time accuse white people for anti-white racism.
I don't think making racist statements makes a person racist. I think racist acts do. Trump doesn't act like a racist. Far from it. Racist statements in America are most common among African Americans. Listen to hip hop and rap, for example. You'd never hear the sort of things black artists say accepted by society if they were coming from white artists, and that includes anti-homosexual and misogynist views.
noemon wrote:Lastly, you keep talking about Theresa May when in fact both Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt have condemned Trump’s tweets.
The thread is about Teresa May popping off at Trump again. We'll see what BoJo says when the UK wants a trade deal with the US while Trump is president.
I'm sure principles will be deprecated and disposed of expediently at that time. The UK is a shambles as a result of globalism. It has become just one more globalist outpost with some GPS coordinates, but the UK itself has practically speaking ceased to exist.
Hindsite wrote:Exactly. The rest of your post is accurate too. Great post blackjack21. However, many ignorant posters can't see facts and truth when it comes to politics and Trump.
As a result of my post, they all have Trump's text before them. They cannot be characterized as "ignorant." So you have to conclude that they know exactly what they are doing. So does Trump, by the way. Noemon argues in ways that are somewhat similar to Pants-of-dog. I've read a lot of PoMo literature--Lionel Trilling, Richard Rorty, John Rawls, etc. Solidarity or agreement is more important to them than facts, which they consider to be subjective and relative. That's why you will hear noemon and Pants-of-dog constantly asking if you agree about something. That's solidarity, and the purpose is to replace truth or facts with agreement. It is quite obvious that Trump isn't some sort of Ku Klux Klan type as he likes far too many blacks and Jews for him to fit that mold.
Richard Rorty: The Contingency of Language wrote:If we are ever again to live in that dawn in which the young Wordsworth exulted, to recapture Schiller’s conviction that art and politics together may jointly shape a new humanity, we need to make a distinction between the claim that the world is out there and the claim that the truth is out there. To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states. To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations. Truth cannot be out there – cannot exist independently of the human mind – because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or false. The world on its own – unaided by the describing activities of human beings – cannot.
The suggestion that truth, as well as the world, is out there is the legacy of an age in which the world was seen as the creation of a being who had a language of His own. This suggestion runs together the truth that the world sometimes causes sentences to be true or false with the falsehood that what causes a sentence to be true is, somehow, itself true – that the world splits itself up, on its own initiative, into sentence-shaped chunks called ‘facts’. If one runs these together, it is easy to start capitalising the word ‘truth’ and treating it as something identical either with God or with the world as God’s project. Then one will say, for example, that Truth is great, and will prevail.
For the atheists, there is no truth. Only agreement. Only solidarity.
While I find his vlogs sometimes pointless, Dr. Steve Turley, a theology professor, really nailed it today. It's worth your ten minutes, but I've teed it up at 4:51 into the vlog to where he says something that is profound--where the modernist now understands, but still rejects the post-modernist. At about 8:30, he makes another key point that leads up to something important. Globalists are still doubling down on a defense of globalism that relies upon philosophical modernism for its legitimacy in a legal and commercial sense.
While I don't necessarily agree that globlism's demise is imminent, its reliance on violence is imminent if it is to rely on philosophical post-modernism for cohesion and legitimacy, because there is no philosophical truth to post modernists. That's why noemon's questions tend to come pre-loaded with conclusions of fact not in evidence. For example:
noemon wrote:Explain in your words why Omar’s comments are more racist than Trump’s and explain why Trump has not apologised for them like Omar has.
So @Hindsite, noemon wants you to at first accept that Trump's comments are racist and then describe the relative difference--the relativism is built-in to the question and the sleight of hand is the built-in conclusion that Trump's comments are racist in spite of the fact that he did not mention race at any point, nor was he criticizing anybody's race. It seems you have picked up on this, and so has the population at large.
Hindsite wrote:I don't consider Trump's comments or actions racist at all, and I have already stated the reason.
noemon wrote:Racism cannot be discounted, ever.
Why not? In a multicultural world, some cultures may be racist. Some may not. Why all the vigilance against racism from white people, but not from blacks or Hispanics or Arabs? It seems that you are indeed discounting racism, while claiming you never do.