Are you convinced we're different people now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Printable View
Are you convinced we're different people now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
And specifically, what did he say to Fox that has been construed as racist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Dude....come on. It's true for pretty much anyone who is about Trump's age. People who grew up before the civil rights act just have looser tongues.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
"Ms Housekeeping" is a fine example. That' just not something you say if you're being sensitive to the challenges faced by a hispanic woman in the United States. It's denigrating to the accomplishments that particular hispanic woman has achieved. But at the same time...it's only slightly so. And I think it's pretty much excusable. I don't think appropriating stereotypes for humorous purposes is the same as hate-speech. I don't think that making that joke means that Trump has an active agenda against hispanic women. It just shows that he's insensitive and vulgar.....like most of his peers.
Furthermore, "grab her by the pussy" is not something you say if you don't have at least *some* tendency to objectify women. However, I'm smart enough to see that there is obviously a difference in the types of women Trump chooses to objectify. Accomplished women, with confidence, dignity, and resumes, are treated like people. Airhead bimbos who present themselves as objects, get treated like objects. That's not sexism, it's just vulgar behavior.
You need to find better things to care about imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Technically yes, because you're treating people differently based on their race. But I think your motivation is admirable. Also, if someone is so paranoid that they think you're not going out of your way to be polite to them because they're a different colour than you, they are the twat, not you.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Here's another way of looking at it - if a black person doesn't go out of their way to hold a door for you, do you automatically assume they're a racist? If not, then applying the same sensibility to others seems fair. maybe what's unfair is to assume they think you're racist because you don't fall over yourself to be polite.
That's it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Notice that Trump talks about people at large all the time and virtually never divides them into groups (except for Americans and non-Americans). All of the times in which people have called Trump racist is when he has made personal attacks against a particular person he personally knows. This is very much not racism.
Keep in mind the only evidence that he said that is that somebody claimed he said it. So, this isn't really an example of something about Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
If he did say it, how in the world do you know it is because of some deep stereotyping sentiment? It couldn't be that the pagent lady was shirking her duties and staying at home?
People need to get the fuck out of here with this noise. The most famous person in the world has been widely labeled racist and sexist based on things people are making up in their minds.
It's like nobody even listens to what is actually said and compares it to actual reality of their own lives. Trump said NOTHING inappropriate here. Go look at what he actually said. He said something that most people have said and something that is totally true. There was absolutely nothing objectifying of women in that.Quote:
"grab her by the pussy"
Hint: he said that when you're a star you can grab a woman by the pussy and she likes it. It's true, and I've come across virtually nobody who doesn't think it's true. The statement is blunt, and if you're in the xtian moral mindset it's vulgar. But it is not remotely wrong or sexist.
If the topic was Gene Simmons, everybody would say yeah duh ofc he's so goddamn famous he can grab her by the pussy and she'd like it (people already say things like that about big stars), but nope, not when it's a Republican running for office. If he says something true, apparently it means he's a bigot.
Note that the statement is true in a hyperbolic sense. It is not the case that Gene Simmons could grab Mike Pence's wife by the pussy and she would like it. But it is true that if Simmons is at a bar and he's getting the kind of attention a woman who knows and likes Gene Simmons would give in that situation, then yeah he can basically grab her by the pussy and she'd like it. This isn't news to anybody.
About 7 paragraphs into the rolling stone article and it already gets many facts wrong and defines racism incorrectly.
I'm reminded of that theorem Michael Crichton came up with. Imagine you're a physicist. Sometimes you'll read some journalist writing about physics in the news and you'll lol at how much stuff he gets wrong. Then you'll turn the page and read another journalist writing about something you aren't an expert in, and you'll think the journalist knows what he's talking about.
It always irritated me that Trump backed down from the truthful star/pussy comment. My guess is he was getting so much pressure to "act Christian" or something (from the clowns at National Review or some shit).
All of the deeply Christian women I know whom I've spoken with about it were unconcerned. They said duh everybody knows that what Trump said is true.
Regarding the topic CoccoBill brings up, how to define racism: I think it would be best to return to what it always meant before race-baiters got ahold of it: scientific racism in the context of politics, i.e., thinking that somebody should have different rights based on his race. It could maybe get into pure scientific racism territory, but it begins to get messy there. For example, there are some legitimate differences between the races. You can reasonably think that a white person would probably burn easier in the sun than a black person.
Institutional racism (like affirmative action) is by far the most serious and very real racism we have to deal with today.
Well when you're thrown a series of softballs and have your own balls sucked for an hour, how can you go wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
So unless Trump blurted out 'fuck the xxx' and I missed it, the issue never came up.
OTOH when someone actually asks him a tough question like 'why don't you disavow the KKK and Nazis and David Duke', he doesn't exactly shine.
Whoaaa, back up.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Go and ask ten random women if they agree with this and don't find it offensive i'll bet 10/10 respond with something along the lines of 'are you out of your mind?'
Only Rosie
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
There's a lot of women apparently who Trump has misunderstood aren't awed by star power.
Also, you are either making that up about all your women friends or you and I move in entirely different circles.
It was common knowledge that tons of women throw themselves at superstars. That is, until Fake News got ahold of what a Republican presidential candidate said.
You're treading into Kellyanne Conway truth-spinning here.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
A better question to ask is if you do say this, how can it NOT be construed as racist?
I agree, actually. The correlation here is probably political prejudice. There are a significant amount of women who have integrated the Fake News version of what Trump said and think it is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
There's a great big difference between having a woman throw herself at you because you're a star and presuming that she wants to have sex with you because you're a star, regardless of whether she does or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Because insulting somebody you personally know in a way that can be correlated with something related to race is not evidence of racism? The hilarious thing is that even on this board there is debate about whether it is racist or sexist? Which is it? Which prejudicial label du jour are we gonna pull out of our asses to explain something on which we have low information?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Rigor is great.
Because appropriating stereotypes for humorous purposes is not racist. It may be vulgar. It may be insensitive. It may be uncouth. But it is certainly not convincing evidence of a predisposition of hatred, or perception of inferiority, toward any particular race or group of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It's clear that minorities in this country are struggling. And if you're very sensitive to that struggle, then you don't say things that perpetuate, or cultivate negative racial stereotypes. If you're less sensitive to that struggle, then maybe you take liberties and crack a few jokes. And while both viewpoints are probably perfectly acceptable in the day to day discourse of the average person, one of those viewpoints is strongly preferred for someone who aims to be POTUS.
We can split hairs about the Ms Housekeeping comment. What did he mean? Who did he say it to? etc etc etc. Or we could move on from that and talk about how he stereotyped the "so-called judge" who was to preside over some lawsuit that I've already forgotten. Trump presumed that the guy was Mexican just because he had a spanish sounding last name.
He actually stood in front of a crowd of people and claimed that this judge couldn't be fair because he has an ethnic lineage that clashes with Trump's aggressive immigration policies. And he didn't even know the guy...
And maybe you've got a dozen 3-d chess related excuses for that one. If so, we can move on to the next incident. The point is there are TOO MANY incidents for them all to be completely innocent.
Yes, I agree that there is more than just a liberal-bias in the media. There is an active agenda to destroy the man and remove him from office. Part of that agenda is blowing up minor misunderstandings into sensational scandals. But it can't be ALL lies.
It is? Jews are struggling? Filipinos? Chinese? Irish? Italians?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
No, the struggling groups are those that have been targeted by race-baiters who trade welfare and victimology for votes.
So then we agree, these groups are clearly struggling. The root cause of that struggle is a topic for another thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
My only point here is that you would have to be delusional to deny that black and latino populations are dis-proportionally affected by poverty. So taunting one of them for having a menial job is kinda mean.
LOL so I'm listening to a Rogan podcast and, on the topic of Weinstein, Brendan Schaub says "How ugly are all these sexual predators? They're hideous. You can't even see my boy Costa getting accused of sexual assault. He don't need to." Paulo Costa is a super attractive hunk dime-piece FYI.
I can't believe Schaub just condoned sexual assault. Just because a man is super attractive means that he can rape women at will? /Fake News version
I wonder if y'all remember, I was a HUGE Trump hater back during the Judge Curiel thing. That was the first experience I had where I saw how the media was just making stuff up, and it was the first time I defended Trump. What he said was true. It is indeed the case that somebody of a particular heritage could have a bias when it comes to assessing the person most widely disliked by people of that heritage. Really, that's all Trump said, and it's true.
It absolutely is. It's just not on the same level as (say) firing someone for being hispanic or kicking them in the shin for being hispanic.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
So by your definition, in assuming the judge was racist, Trump himself was being racist. (not that I accept that definition because it's like saying if you assume someone is a serial killer, that makes you a serial killer, but w/e )Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
First off, it isn't race but nationality.
And what I said, not very well, was an attempt to navigate the very legitimate idea that what people think regarding what is racist can be a sign that they themselves are inadvertently engaging in racism. Here's an example, there was a story of a white guy who brought a watermelon to a company party with a lot of black guys. He then got fired for being racist. Regardless of the details of this actual event, in a hypothetically similar event, if his intent is not known and somebody thinks that what he did is wrong because "these poor black guys must have been offended by the party watermelon," that person begins to enter territory of his own racism.
This kind of racism is real yet goes wholly unaddressed by many. It's where we get total nonsense of explicitly racist ideas (like affirmative action) defended as anti-racism. What seems to truly be going on is the "white savior complex" element of racism. "Oh those poor blacks can't achieve success on their own, we wonderful whites need to pass laws that benefit them exclusively....."
I already said this is a lame defense. There's no word for nationality-ism, so basically the word racism has been co-opted as being close enough in meaning and sharing the same spirit. IOW, if you're being prejudiced against an ethnic group or a nationality or a group such as the jews, whether or not they constitute a race in the vernacular sense of black, white, red, or yellow is irrelevant. You're still being prejudiced.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
If we want to split hairs even further, there's no such thing as different races of humans, we're all homo sapiens. So clearly the word 'racist' is an anomaly of the language.
I take it you made this up, but assume it did happen. The guy wasn't being racist on purpose but he was being insensitive since it ought to have occurred to him how it would look. And no he shouldn't have been fired.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I agree affirmative action is simply racism turned backwards. The principle I believe of this kind of action is that it gives a measurable result, whereas just asking people nicely to ignore the applicant's race when hiring presumably doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
But I disagree with your second point that treating the group as needing a leg up implies they're inherently inferior. What it implies is they've been not given the same opportunities as the ruling group.
Nope. This just goes to show how much the term "racism" has been diluted over the years. People don't even know what it means anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Key word - "superior".
I didn't make it up. I don't know if it was Fake News though, but I am pulling from something I assume is an actual event.
How is it insensitive when we don't know if he even meant it that way. I once had zero fucking clue that there is a stereotype about old black guys and gin. It can happen. And watermelon is delicious. Even if you think in terms of the stereotype of watermelon and black people, how is it insensitive to try to get something you think they'll like? TIL if I go to a married man's house, I'm being insensitive by not trying to bang his wife since I'm assuming the stereotype that most married men aren't cucks. This whole insensitive thing is the microaggression nonsense in more pleasant wrappings. The silliest thing about all this is that if you go up to a white guy in Tennessee with a straw in his mouth and hand him a six-pack of Bud Light and say "you look like a hillbilly and I know hillbillies like Bud Light so here" he'll just say "hot damn thanks fer dat dere beer fella" or whatever the fuck. But if you bring fried chicken to a party full of black guys because every single black guy you've ever heard opine on fried chicken has said they love it, your white ass is being insensitive.
It's like the joke: why can't you be racist against whites? Because whites have a sense of humor.
On your last point, I'm not saying that treating people like they need help is wrong. I'm saying that when the motivation for why to do that is wrong, it's wrong.
Actually no I'm not saying when the motivation is wrong the action is wrong. I'm saying when the motivation is wrong the motivation is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It has nothing to do with him being a jerk on purpose or not. It has to do with the fact everyone knows that stereotype about black people and watermelon and he should have realized he would LOOK like a jerk and at least some of those black people would THINK he did it on purpose. That's why it's insensitive.
If you don't agree it's insensitive you have to at least agree it was thoughtless and not in his own best interests. Still, getting fired for that is a bit much.
Because you should realize there's a very large chance that's not how it will come across. See point above.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Reducto ad absurdum.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Haven't tried this with hillbillies, but I'm guessing that if a black person did it, it would not go down well.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
you're point being that referring to someone as having a place in society where they hold a menial job is not acting in a superior manner?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Sounds like an indictment regarding the racist ways people think of these things.
You're making the assumption that this is Trump's motive, and you're doing so to justify your charge of racism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Best I can tell, he was insulting her. He probably does think he is superior to her... on a personal level. Like, he probably thinks he's superior to most people, since he's a highly successful businessman turned President.
That's arrogance, not racism. If he holds this view towards all Hispanic people, regardless of thier actual place in society, then yes he's being racist. Does he hold this view? That is not clear based on the facts. So you're jumping to conclusions in an effort to charge Trump with a more serious accusation than simple arrogance.
No, you're trying to find a loophole whereby calling a hispanic woman Ms. Housekeeping isn't racist, but something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
But obviously there's only one way to interpret that insult, just like there's only one way to interpret Mr. Petrol Station.
Again, superiority. Based on race.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You can interpret it how you like, but it's your interpretation of racism. And it's wrong.
That's pretty much the very definition of racism.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Yes, that's my point. This isn't what Trump did, unless you wish to guess his motive. I'm guessing his motive too, but I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt where the motive is not obvious. I'm assuming his motive was to insult an individual. You're assuming his motive is to insult a race of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
So if someone calls a person by a racist slur they're not being racist they're just being mean to that one person. Not sure about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Well then you're not sure about the definition of racism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If I call a Chinese person a Chinky, well I'm not being racist because I consider the Chinese to be a wonderful race of people, I certainly do not believe that white people are superior to Chinese. So by definition, I am not being racist. However, people assume it's racist because people assume racism is simply saying mean things.
This is what I mean about the word "racism" being diluted from its original meaning.
Pot/Kettle situation brewing here.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
C'mon, you can do betterQuote:
If I call a Chinese person a Chinky,
If you and your Chinese friend have a rapport that allows you to use insensitive language with each other when you're alone, then great. You call him chinky, he calls you soccer-pussy, it's all in good fun. But if other people, who aren't in on your little joke, hear you use the word "chinky" then you had better believe it is racist.Quote:
well I'm not being racist because I consider the Chinese to be a wonderful race of people, I certainly do not believe that white people are superior to Chinese. So by definition, I am not being racist. However, people assume it's racist because people assume racism is simply saying mean things
Nah, it pretty much means the same thing. You're saying that it's more important to have your little inside joke, than it is to avoid insulting the dignity of of anyone with east asian facial features.Quote:
This is what I mean about the word "racism" being diluted from its original meaning.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Just because you might enjoy the irony of using racist language about a group against which you hold no attitude of superiority regarding, doesn't change the fact that you're using racist language and thus, being racist.
An analogy is if you get in an argument with your friend, and it gets really heated. You pull out a gun and decide to fire a warning shot over his head so he'll shut up. But oops, your aim is bad and you kill him. Do you think you should get away with that because you didn't really hate your friend or intend to harm him?
Not sure what you mean by "get away with it."
It's not murder, since the killing was an accident, but it was certainly some kind of reckless endangerment or manslaughter, regardless.
There are no examples of Trump speaking in racist terms or using racist slurs.
The idea that the proposed examples of his secret racism/sexism are racist/sexist only when the non-racist/sexist things he says involve a person of a particular race or gender is statistics 101 fail.
"Get away with it" means "not be punished."Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The law considers the fact that you ignored the potential risks of firing off a gun outweighs the fact that your motivation was not to harm. Thus you still get a prison sentence because in the eyes of the law you were still a douchebag.
My point is if you do the same thing using racist language in a situation in which it should be clear to anyone that such language could easily offend someone, then your inner feelings and motivations are secondary in that case too. IOW, you're also being a douchebag.
Early reports that ISIS has lost its last stronghold in Syria and forced to retreat to its final stronghold in Sweden.
Ok, so please explain to me how an insulting word demonstrates a belief that my race is superior to another.Quote:
Originally Posted by banana
Because that's how language works, by communicating a message. Your argument is that if you call someone a name but don't really believe it, whether or not they interpret it as harmful is irrelevant. They should be able to read your mind and know you didn't mean it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
But in the real world, the expectation is that you actually think about what your words and actions mean to others so you aren't misunderstood.
What, language works by changing the context of one's intent? By fooling people into thinking you are saying something you're not?Quote:
Because that's how language works
No, my argument is that calling someone a name is not a statement that I think my race is superior to theirs.Quote:
Your argument is that if you call someone a name but don't really believe it...
So you're admitting that it isn't racist, just that it can be misunderstood as racist? That's really not the same thing, is it?Quote:
misunderstood
We all have the right to be insensitive, BTW.
I've said some things which I had no idea would be considered racist, coming from a 98%+ white neighborhood and school district.
Lack of exposure to black culture left me unaware of plenty of things that were historically used to belittle black people.
Now that I know about those things will be received, I can choose my communication methods in such a way that my ideas are heard, and not some unintended subtext associated with my choice of words.
I'm not sure why everyone's so certain that Trump's comment was racist and not sexist. Anyone care to enlighten me on that?
Why is asserting she's a housekeeper more a slam against Latina women and not all women?
People determine your intent by interpreting what you communicate. If what you are communicating has a common and widespread alternate usage that is offensive, then you really shouldn't be surprised if people apply that interpretation.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You don't have to demonstrate, or claim, superiority over a race in order to be considered racist. Simply denigrating another race is enough to be racist.Quote:
No, my argument is that calling someone a name is not a statement that I think my race is superior to theirs.
For example, Asian culture places an emphasis on education and commitment to strong families that has driven them to prosperity in America. I admire that quite a bit. I don't see them as inferior at all. It's still hella-fucking-racist if I ranted about their terrible driving, or called one "chinky"
It's hard to call it a misunderstanding when your communication is so poor. You're pretty much talking shit and asking people to make the best sense of it that they can. So it's kinda on you if someone hears shit coming out of your mouth and thinks it sounds shitty.Quote:
So you're admitting that it isn't racist, just that it can be misunderstood as racist? That's really not the same thing, is it?
I'll switch gears for a minute and agree with Ong about the definition of racism being diluted.
You'll have a hard time convincing me that the movie "Blazing Saddles" is racist. The dialogue is accurate for the time depicted. The racist sentiments are all expressed by characters portrayed as buffoons and simpletons. The most adept and charismatic character in the movie is a black guy. And yet, you will NEVER see that shit on cable TV ever again. It used to be on all the time!!
Where all the white women at!?
"The sherriff is....near"
and
"Somebody go back and get a shitload of dimes"
How come they keep using the word "white" so much?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...wGf?li=BBnb7Kz
Incendiary headline: Kushner Is Said to Have Told Flynn to Contact Russia
Synopsis of the story:
So why print this story???Quote:
Nonetheless, nothing in the Flynn plea sheds any light on whether the Trump campaign actually colluded with Russia to influence the election.
He baits the hook and casts it into the river. Then Pocahontas admits her colleague is a slut. Glorious.
https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/940615748988342273
That's also a good example of the embedded prejudices from the social justice ideology. Notice how Pocahontas ASSUMED Trump saying "and would do anything for them" to mean that Gillibrand would do sexual favors. Trump never said Gillibrand would do sexual favors; Pocahontas did. This is a solid manifestation of how social justice requires the racism/sexism/etc kind of prejudices to function that social justice advocates accuse others of.
It's all 100 percent projecting. That's the whole point of all of it. It's the point of virtue signalling, to try to cover up what they know is there with all of their might. It's why they're such fucking jokes.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
http://i.magaimg.net/img/257w.png
Thank fucking goodness for Donald fucking Trump
MAGA
anyone else think Trump isn't getting enough credit for fucking up ISIS?
Nope, on the contrary too much credit. Just now. From you.
Of course. He did exactly what he said he was going to do. Therefore, he shouldn't get any credit. /liberal crybaby logicQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
There is no Islamic Caliphate. They got fucked up, as they should have since they no longer have Obama funding them.
Trump leading to the demolition of ISIS is one of the most clear things in politics there is.
Yup, just like Truman led America to win WWII.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
i dont know that history.
i do know that when does little regarding ISIS and micromanages the military and ISIS grows and the military gets very little done, but then the next president prioritizes defeating ISIS and eliminates all micromanagement and ISIS get annihilated swiftly, we've got some probable causality.
giving trump his due when it is very clear he should get it is a good look for trump haters. because, you know, nobody would take trump haters seriously if they can't even do that.
You should. Check out the Ken Burns film "The War". Fucking awesome and it will get you all caught up in about 12 hours.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
What is Pocahontas gonna do in 2020 if Trump can actually run on his record? lolQuote:
giving trump his due when it is very clear he should get it is a good look for trump haters. because, you know, nobody would take trump haters seriously if they can't even do that.
FDR was president until early '45 when he died. Then Truman took over and a few months later won the war which FDR couldn't because he was a shit president when it came to defeating Nazis. I'm gonna assume you don't need the sarcasm explained to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I thought Burns' "The Civil War" was amazingly well done. I already knew how WWII went so never felt the need to watch that one, but I might check it out some time.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Calling her that is an insult to Native Americans. ducy?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
His prison record? But seriously, if the election were held tomorrow and it was her vs Trump I'm guessing she'd win. Bigly.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Really? It is almost certain that we can add a few percentage points worth of voters to Trump in all the states that went for him. He's in a significantly better position now than he was the day of the election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I guess that depends on who you ask. If you ask his core supporters they probably all think he's doing a great job. If you ask the people who never liked him, they probably think he's doing an awful job. So it's the ones in the middle who need to be won over and kept. The last I heard his approval rating was 32%, so that leads me to believe those ones in the middle aren't really with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
My read -- which is a great read -- is that the sizable number of Christian conservatives who didn't vote for him because they did not like him for their Christiany reasons will mostly vote for him in 2020. And some middle-of-the-road or neo-conservative Republicans who couldn't pull the trigger for him will in 2020. Not all of these types will do so though. There is some deeply entrenched hate for Trump among people who call themselves conservative or Republican. I periodically review their main news sources just to see if they have yet come to their senses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop