*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

Looks like indictments into the Clinton cartel may come sooner than I expected. The Democrat-media complex is finally catching on to what the whispers from Trump insiders have been saying for months: that Mueller has been investigating the cartel under the guise of investigating the fabricated Trump stuff. Now that some things have come to light about the Clinton cartel and Mueller looking into them, the Democrat-media complex has swiftly turned on a dime regarding Mueller, from loving him to calling for his resignation.

Wuf, I'll bet Mueller is hot on the heels of Manafort well over Clinton for claim over your avatar.

You game?

I also think the announced indictment could be Manafort. Also could be Comey or a Podesta. Also could be nothing. There are solid reasons to believe any of these.

I don't know what's going on. The "official story" does not make sense. It isn't going to be the case that the day after Trump interviews a man for FBI position, Trump's AG hires him to go after Trump.

It should be noted that indicting Manafort would not necessarily mean that Mueller is going after Trump. Manafort's relevant ties to this are not with Trump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Looks like indictments into the Clinton cartel may come sooner than I expected. The Democrat-media complex is finally catching on to what the whispers from Trump insiders have been saying for months: that Mueller has been investigating the cartel under the guise of investigating the fabricated Trump stuff. Now that some things have come to light about the Clinton cartel and Mueller looking into them, the Democrat-media complex has swiftly turned on a dime regarding Mueller, from loving him to calling for his resignation.

---

Case study on how orange spectacles may impair vision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Case study on how orange spectacles may impair vision.

---

(1) Yep. I have to frequently bed down my enthusiasm that justice might prevail.

(2) Even so, so far we are on track: http://archive.is/SasEd

I kinda took my finger off the pulse for a while, but checked back in when I saw this stuff on Manafort.

Help me catch up now, and tell me if I have this right...

1) Manafort is going down for laundering money he made as a pro-Putin political consultant in Ukraine, and thus far is not charged with any crime related to the Trump campaign.

2) A low low low low low level staffer in the Trump campaign (Popadopolous) may have had some low low low low low level Russian contacts who claimed to have "dirt" on Hillary. They were offering this dirt in order to leverage a meeting with Trump. Trump declined. He never made any contacts, he never went to a meeting, and he certainly didn't accept any Russian-sourced dirt on the opposition

3) At the same time, the Hillary campaign went out and actually PAID for Russian-sourced dirt on the opposition.

4) Donna Brazille confirms what we all pretty much know by now, and that is that Hillary colluded with the DNC to box-out Bernie.

5) And the democrats still think that Trump is not legitimately in office....cuz Russia and cuz collusion.

Do I have that about right?

If anyone thinks that Trump doesn't skate to a re-election win in 2020, then I want you to share whatever you're smoking with me.

1) That's my understanding.
2) If you take out at least most of the "lows", yeah. Obviously his part in the campaign is now downplayed and he's being distanced from Trump.
3) If by "actually PAID for Russian-sourced" you mean paid a brit to investigate, and by "dirt" you mean evidence of foul play during the campaign, yes.
4) Apparently Hillary bailed the DNC from their financial debt and the allegation is that she expected the nomination as payment. All of this was known already at the time and criticized by Bernie's supporters, nothing really new from Brazile. Also the timeline of the events is a bit muddy, most of this likely happened after her nomination was a done deal anyway.
5) Yeah. Let's just wait for Mueller to finish his job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

1) That's my understanding.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

2) If you take out at least most of the "lows", yeah. Obviously his part in the campaign is now downplayed and he's being distanced from Trump.

---

Well, how not-low could he really have been? He graduated college in 2009 and he still had "Model UN" listed as an accomplishment on his resume.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

3) If by "actually PAID for Russian-sourced" you mean paid a brit to investigate,

---

I feel like you're leaving out a lot of details here....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

and by "dirt" you mean evidence of foul play during the campaign, yes.

---

What foul play? By whom? And no that's not what I meant by "dirt". I was referring to russian-sourced garbage about Trump being a pee-freak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

4) Apparently Hillary bailed the DNC from their financial debt and the allegation is that she expected the nomination as payment. All of this was known already at the time and criticized by Bernie's supporters, nothing really new from Brazile. Also the timeline of the events is a bit muddy, most of this likely happened after her nomination was a done deal anyway.

---

So.....just because the purpose of the collusion was to bring about a result that was likely to happen anyway, then the collusion is ok? Is that what you're saying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

5) Yeah. Let's just wait for Mueller to finish his job.

---

I don't think Mueller is there to finish a job. I think he's there to create one. And thus far, he hasn't been able to. The holy grail of this investigation, for the dems at least, is to indict Trump for colluding with a foreign government to influence an election. Specifically, they have to tie the Podesta hack directly to Trump. We've waited over a year now, through an age of unprecedented government leaks, and not a shred of information to that effect has surfaced.

Question: What will it take for the dems to say "well shit, I guess he won fair and square"

As long as that questions remains unanswered...Mueller's job is never finished

You can tell what the media-Democrat conglomerate believes Mueller is doing based on how they react. The script has changed significantly. I don't know what Trump's employee Mueller will ultimately overturn, but the media-Democrat conglomerate is acting scared.

Looks like someone is calling attention to the deplorable hypocrisy of Trump tweet's asking for the death penalty for the NYC truck-rampage terrorist. After all, Trump wasn't calling for the death penalty when a white american man killed 5 dozen people in Las Vegas.

That's obvious undeniable racism right? How can Trump demand the execution of muslim who killed 8, but not the execution of a white man who killed 58?

I wonder if it matters to the democrats if the white man is already dead? Doesn't seem so. Apparently they think Trump should be calling for his execution anyway.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...s-shooter.html

It's hard to argue from hypotheticals, but I'm guessing that if the Vegas shooter were alive and still white, Trump still wouldn't be ranting about giving him the death penalty. Just a guess.

Overall though, certainly hard to pin Trump to any racist leanings. Oh wait, actually it is really easy as long as you don't run out of fingers to count the times on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

It's hard to argue from hypotheticals, but I'm guessing that if the Vegas shooter were alive and still white, Trump still wouldn't be ranting about giving him the death penalty. Just a guess.

---

Utter nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Overall though, certainly hard to pin Trump to any racist leanings. Oh wait, actually it is really easy as long as you don't run out of fingers to count the times on.

---

That depends on what your definition of "racist leanings" is.

Are we sticking to the traditional, fact-based, dictionary definition of racism? Or are we using the current 2017 standard where I was called an oppressor because my fair-skinned, blond-haired daughter dressed up as Elsa for Halloween and promoted a stereotypical white standard of beauty?

Huge difference.

The fact that some people are hysterical SJWs doesn't change any of the things Trump has said (or failed to say). We all know what they are.

I also find your anecdote somewhat dubious...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I also find your anecdote somewhat dubious...

---

My kid was Elsa for Halloween. That day I read more than one article online about 'racist' halloween costumes. Elsa was prominently mentioned. Apparently it's a white privilege to be able to dress up as a white person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Overall though, certainly hard to pin Trump to any racist leanings. Oh wait, actually it is really easy as long as you don't run out of fingers to count the times on.

---

Find one example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Find one example.

---

lol, there's like more than a dozen.

Let's start with his reluctance to disavow David Duke's support and go from there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

My kid was Elsa for Halloween. That day I read more than one article online about 'racist' halloween costumes. Elsa was prominently mentioned. Apparently it's a white privilege to be able to dress up as a white person.

---

So? It's not like it's hard to find someone spewing drivel on the internet. Don't see what that has to do with Trump being a racist, unless you argument is that's not as bad as being a hysterical SJW

Thank you for bringing that up. Claiming that you don't know a guy (that is considered a racist) or what he is up to so you don't won't opine or disavow is not racism.

Find me an actual example of racism.

Here's the trick, and the reason I am asking you: I already know the answer. You can't find Trump saying a racist thing. This is a media lie that I once believed. I don't like believing lies. I'm sure you don't either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Thank you for bringing that up. Claiming that you don't know a guy (that is considered a racist) or what he is up to so you don't won't opine or disavow is not racism.

Find me an actual example of racism.

Here's the trick, and the reason I am asking you: I already know the answer. You can't find Trump saying a racist thing. This is a media lie that I once believed. I don't like believing lies. I'm sure you don't either.

---

You're splitting hairs. Everyone in the US knows who David Duke is unless they live in a cave in the wilderness. It's like saying you don't know who OJ is. Pretending you don't know Duke so you don't have to disavow him is tacitly condoning him and what he stands for.

He's had a similar problem disavowing Nazis and the KKK.

The question isn't what he intended to do. It's whether he did something racist. That, and the other things you alluded to, are not racist statements or actions.

I don't know how to read minds. I don't know what he thought. What I can meaningfully comment on is that from a strategic perspective, public disavowals of a particular group (even when it's the Nazis) is often a bad idea. Given that I have seen Trump play a particular strategy where it is very likely that he knows this, it makes sense that he would not opt to disavow any group publicly. I could go more into this strategy if you want (and explain the counterintuitive claim that even disavowing Nazis can easily backfire). Trump didn't do so hot on this when it was public, but it is pretty apparent that he at least knows the game and tries to play according to a strategy that includes not making public disavowals of people/groups when prompted by somebody else.

You're choosing to argue it's all just a part of his 3D chess strategy but it's the same lame argument you use to defend a lot of his bad behavior, i.e., that the end justifies the means, and that he somehow knows what the end will be before he gets there.

But the morality of the situation is clear - if a white supremacist leader endorses you and you don't disavow them immediately then you're tacitly condoning their ethos. If that doesn't make you a racist it certainly makes you just as bad as one.

But if you want a more concrete example, then there's Trump referring to the hispanic beauty contest winner as 'Ms. Housekeeping'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

So? It's not like it's hard to find someone spewing drivel on the internet. Don't see what that has to do with Trump being a racist, unless you argument is that's not as bad as being a hysterical SJW

---

Hysterical SJWs are the most prejudiced people in the public realm today. Apparently I should feel bad because I'm a white hetrosexual male, and have no problem with being such. Anyone who says it's not ok to be white is racist.

Quote:

---

But if you want a more concrete example, then there's Trump referring to the hispanic beauty contest winner as 'Ms. Housekeeping'.

---

Really? That's the best you can do? Is this on the same level as being told that being white is not ok?

From what I can gather, he was being sexist, not racist. And Mrs Clinton chimed in by saying he was being disrespectful to women. This coming from a woman who tried to silence women who made accusations against her husband.

Trump is very much outspoken. That is not the same as holding racist views, such as "it's not ok to be a certain colour".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Hysterical SJWs are the most prejudiced people in the public realm today. Apparently I should feel bad because I'm a white hetrosexual male, and have no problem with being such. Anyone who says it's not ok to be white is racist.

---

They are not only a big part of the problem today, but even worse they don't realise they are part of the problem, but think they are part of the solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Really? That's the best you can do? Is this on the same level as being told that being white is not ok?

---

No, it's just an example. There's plenty of others. Is the fact that he isn't shaving his head and shouting 'white power' mean to you he isn't racist, or just not a bad enough racist that we should be bothered by it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Is this on the same level as being told that being white is not ok?

---

Pretty much. It's implying that being a hispanic womans means your role in American society is to clean up after others. If a politician here referred to an Indian gentleman as "Mr. Petrol Station", would you be ok with that too?

And would you appreciate this kind of characterisation if it were applied to white people, and by extension, to you? Obviously not, since you're clearly bothered by SJWs giving you shit for being white male hetero.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

From what I can gather, he was being sexist, not racist.

---

Seems like a combination of both to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

And Mrs Clinton chimed in by saying he was being disrespectful to women. This coming from a woman who tried to silence women who made accusations against her husband.

---

ya well I don't set my moral compass to HRC, so what she says or does isn't relevant here. The argument is about Trump, not anyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Trump is very much outspoken. That is not the same as holding racist views, such as "it's not ok to be a certain colour".

---

Again, saying he's not as bad as a hysterical SJW is a weak argument. He should judged on his own behavior, not others'.

Also, if he were a bit more outspoken about being in favour of equality and fair treatment for everyone it would be better than a lot of the shit he spews. Just sayin'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ong

From what I can gather, he was being sexist, not racist.

---

It's almost like there is no rigor when it comes to accusing Trump of something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

If a politician here referred to an Indian gentleman as "Mr. Petrol Station"...

---

This example shows why referring to that woman as Ms. Housekeeping is more racist than sexist. Petrol station attendants in the UK (or at least the part where I live) are predominantly male Indian. If a white female politician made this comment the overwhelming feeling would be it's a racist comment; hardly anyone would say it's a sexist one.

You can counter with some argument that its not actually racist but relates to ethnicity independent of race, because Indian and hispanic aren't technically races, but whatever. It's obnoxious and offensive either way.

My experience is that people who are willing to make these kinds of comments in public aren't paragons of tolerance in private either.

It's the essence of entitlement to think you deserve something that other people don't deserve.

I hope no one is surprised to find out that politicians are entitled.

A glaring problem with the claim that these kinds of statements are racist is that not nearly enough information is had that would be required to determine if the accusations are probably racist.

The statements are not in themselves racist. There are plenty of legitimate reasons why somebody would say something that correlates with a race yet is not motivated by the race. Jumping to conclusions and assuming the reason comes from racist intent, well, who does that make the racist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wuf

who does that make the racist?

---

It doesn't make person A a racist to assume Person B is a racist, unless person A thinks person B is a racist on the basis of person B's race.

Asserting Trump is racist based on the umpteenth seemingly-maybe-probably-at-least-a-bit-racist-but-also-maybe-just-tactless-elitism thing the President has said is not racist.

I agree that what people define as racist has gotten very far from what is actually racist.

In addition, I question racism-accusations since they have gotten so out of hand in popular culture that it seems they have molded into its own kind of racism.

I don't know if an overabundance of racism-accusations represents racism itself, but sometimes I wonder. To get to that point, a person has to kinda think like "blacks are like this, whites are like this, latinos are like this....", and the moment somebody does something that doesn't confirm to that person's views on race, it's racism. That looks to me like it could be a type of racism in itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

It's almost like there is no rigor when it comes to accusing Trump of something.

---

"Miss Househeeping" kind of assumes a stereotypical gender role for a not-so-bright woman. That's what I take from that comment. Clearly that has a tone of casual sexism. Not that I have a problem with it, so it's not really an "accusation", more an observation.

I don't really see how it relates to race. I suppose in USA Hispanic people are more likely to work as a housekeeper, so I can see an element of casual racism, but not nearly enough to cry about. Imagine if Winston Churchill were still alive today. He was savage when he insulted people. When accused of being drunk by a lady, he replies "You are ugly, but in the morning I'll be sober". And this guy is widely considered our greatest ever leader.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

No, it's just an example. There's plenty of others. Is the fact that he isn't shaving his head and shouting 'white power' mean to you he isn't racist, or just not a bad enough racist that we should be bothered by it?

---

Plenty of other cases of marginal complaints that require one to be easily offended in order to take offence. Making such a comment in an attempt to insult a lady one holds in contempt is a million miles away from white power. This is why the charge of racism has become diluted. Actual racists who have views of superiority and people who say mean things are being clumped together. They are not the same kind of people.

Quote:

---

Pretty much. It's implying that being a hispanic womans means your role in American society is to clean up after others. If a politician here referred to an Indian gentleman as "Mr. Petrol Station", would you be ok with that too?

---

I would consider it a little inappropriate, however it's a great deal better than calling him a Paki. And Prince Philip is a bugger for this... he's regularly saying mildly racist things that made most people scream "you can't say that". Is he an actual racist? I dunno, but I'm not going to say he is based on sloppy language and childlike humour.

Quote:

---

Again, saying he's not as bad as a hysterical SJW is a weak argument. He should judged on his own behavior, not others'.

---

His behaviour is not as bad as screeching SJW's. I haven't seen Trump say that it's not ok to be any particular colour. All I've seen are Prince Philip style comments that really do not deserve the hysteria they attract.

Quote:

---

Also, if he were a bit more outspoken about being in favour of equality and fair treatment for everyone it would be better than a lot of the shit he spews. Just sayin'.

---

Well yeah. Way to state the obvious. Also, if he did this and that instead of this and that he'd be better. Same can be said for every single person on the planet, including every leader on the planet. Why aren't you saying the same about May? Because she doesn't say stupid things that sensetive people consider to be outrageous? She's still an arse who couldn't give a fuck about equality and fair treatment. That's the nature of leaders, Trump is nothing special there.

Trump says stupid shit sometimes. I don't give a fuck, to be quite honest. I still think the world dodged a bullet by voting him in instead of Hillary, so I'm still cutting him some slack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Also, if he were a bit more outspoken about being in favour of equality and fair treatment for everyone it would be better than a lot of the shit he spews. Just sayin'.

---

Maybe he is and you just don't know it.

When you see Trump on the news, most times, you're only seeing a tiny fraction of a much longer dialogue.

You do realize that there is another party (usually with a liberal agenda) deciding which fractions of the dialogue you see, and which you don't. Right?

^^That's true.

All popular press (all of it) only reports from one perspective. If you go to pro-Trump circles, you find people who think he is one of the most compassionate people in the country and they can back it up with evidence. It's just not evidence the popular press has ever mentioned.

I like how Fake News spent all day yesterday ridiculing Trump for stupidly dumping an ENTIRE BOX of food in the Koi pond, what a stupid loser. And then today corrections were made at the bottom of their articles that nobody reads, because people saw what actually happened: Shinzo Abe dumped his entire box just before Trump did.

It's to the point that if the popular press reports on something, believing the exact opposite will probably result in the truth more often than not.

Archive of a total hit piece.

http://archive.is/nNwJR

what actually happened:

https://i.imgur.com/NlByMeP.gifv

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

"Miss Househeeping" kind of assumes a stereotypical gender role for a not-so-bright woman.

---

Then you've never been to America. It seems like almost every cleaning lady is hispanic, every porter or doorman is black. Not that it's any better here.

And if what you say is correct about not-so-bright, there's a racist overtone suggesting hispanics are dumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I don't really see how it relates to race. I suppose in USA Hispanic people are more likely to work as a housekeeper, so I can see an element of casual racism, but not nearly enough to cry about. Imagine if Winston Churchill were still alive today. He was savage when he insulted people. When accused of being drunk by a lady, he replies "You are ugly, but in the morning I'll be sober". And this guy is widely considered our greatest ever leader.

---

Different times, different values. And I'm pretty sure his status is based pretty much entirely on his ability to inspire people in troubled times and lead the country against an evil power; it's got nothing to do with the fact he insulted a woman's appearance, or strongly believed in Empire, or was a manic-depressive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Plenty of other cases of marginal complaints that require one to be easily offended in order to take offence. Making such a comment in an attempt to insult a lady one holds in contempt is a million miles away from white power. This is why the charge of racism has become diluted. Actual racists who have views of superiority and people who say mean things are being clumped together. They are not the same kind of people.

---

I agree it's way down the rankings on offensiveness. But, the problem isn't that such comments are on an equal basis with shouting white power, the problem is they shouldn't be in one's repertoire at all, particularly if they want to stand at the head of a country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I would consider it a little inappropriate, however it's a great deal better than calling him a Paki. And Prince Philip is a bugger for this... he's regularly saying mildly racist things that made most people scream "you can't say that". Is he an actual racist? I dunno, but I'm not going to say he is based on sloppy language and childlike humour.

---

Ya, but Prince Philip is about 130 years old. You might as well try to get your grandpa to stop saying racist things. Back in his day, being racist was the standard. He's also not in any real position of authority and so it's more like he's a symbol of a bygone age mixed in with a lack of self-control than he is a symbol of what our country is today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Ya, but Prince Philip is about 130 years old. You might as well try to get your grandpa to stop saying racist things. Back in his day, being racist was the standard.

---

How old do you think Trump is?

Trump's parents lived most of their adult lives with all-white baseball, and it was considered FINE. Trump was already 2 years old before black people were allowed to be pro athletes. He was 17 before black people were allowed to drink from the same water fountain as white people. So if grown-up Trump hangs on to a few cantankerous habits, I wouldn't exactly call that a psychological anomaly.

Moreover, he became a massive success, generated unfathomable wealth, and successfully won a presidential campaign against the most "sure-bet" candidate I've seen in my lifetime. And he did all this WHILE he still had those habits. So what logical motivation would Trump have to change?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

How old do you think Trump is?

Trump's parents lived most of their adult lives with all-white baseball, and it was considered FINE. Trump was already 2 years old before black people were allowed to be pro athletes. He was 17 before black people were allowed to drink from the same water fountain as white people. So if grown-up Trump hangs on to a few cantankerous habits, I wouldn't exactly call that a psychological anomaly.

Moreover, he became a massive success, generated unfathomable wealth, and successfully won a presidential campaign against the most "sure-bet" candidate I've seen in my lifetime. And he did all this WHILE he still had those habits. So what logical motivation would Trump have to change?

---

You're right, if you live in a country where those kinds of things are acceptable to enough people that you can win an election then you have no motivation to change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Trump's parents lived most of their adult lives with all-white baseball, and it was considered FINE. Trump was already 2 years old before black people were allowed to be pro athletes. He was 17 before black people were allowed to drink from the same water fountain as white people. So if grown-up Trump hangs on to a few cantankerous habits, I wouldn't exactly call that a psychological anomaly.

---

Sorry dude, this is a big argument loser, and Mademoiselle Poopadoop noticed.

If you think Trump harbors some racist or sexist sentiments, I'd recommend looking harder. The evidence that he harbors those sentiments is weak as shit and the evidence that he doesn't is very, very strong. But arguing that if he doesn't hold the sentiments, it's okay, is a big loser of an argument and makes us all look bad as well as it doesn't even correctly represent what his supporters actually think. It ISN'T that Trump supporters are okay with some small racism/sexism, but that Trump supporters LOATHE racism and sexism and truly believe Trump does too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Sorry dude, this is a big argument loser, and Mademoiselle Poopadoop noticed.

If you think Trump harbors some racist or sexist sentiments, I'd recommend looking harder. The evidence that he harbors those sentiments is weak as shit and the evidence that he doesn't is very, very strong. But arguing that if he doesn't hold the sentiments, it's okay, is a big loser of an argument and makes us all look bad as well as it doesn't even correctly represent what his supporters actually think. It ISN'T that Trump supporters are okay with some small racism/sexism, but that Trump supporters LOATHE racism and sexism and truly believe Trump does too.

---

I think you meant "does" not "doesn't" on the bolded.

You've taken an extreme position wuf, and as such, it's pretty much indefensible.

No one is saying that "Trump is just kinda racist...so it's not a big deal"

What I am saying is that Trump, throughout his life, certainly learned some tendencies that in 2017 are considered offensive by some people/groups. Is it racism/sexism? Personally, I don't think so. Making jokes that incorporate stereotypes or cliches isn't what I consider racist. it's insensitive. It's possibly vulgar. But not racist/sexist.

Other people disagree.

These sentiments exist within Trump. Denying that, wuf, is positively silly. the question is whether or not they represent actual hatred towards an ethnicity, or represent a sincere belief in the inferiority/superiority of certain races. I don't see that. I see an old man, whose life experiences have accumulated both a vulgar sense of humor, and an attitude of "I know I'm not really racist, so I really don't give a fuck if your'e offended at some off-color jokes"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Sorry dude, this is a big argument loser, and Mademoiselle Poopadoop noticed.

If you think Trump harbors some racist or sexist sentiments, I'd recommend looking harder. The evidence that he harbors those sentiments is weak as shit and the evidence that he doesn't is very, very strong. But arguing that if he doesn't hold the sentiments, it's okay, is a big loser of an argument and makes us all look bad as well as it doesn't even correctly represent what his supporters actually think. It ISN'T that Trump supporters are okay with some small racism/sexism, but that Trump supporters LOATHE racism and sexism and truly believe Trump does too.

---

Even Banana can see you're out on a limb here.

I'd like to see some of this 'very very strong' evidence that Trump holds equality among the races (or sexes for that matter) in high regard. And not just Hannity said so kind of evidence, but actually something tangible he's said or done. And by 'tangible' I don't mean hiring a jewish person to do his taxes or tipping a black waiter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

You do realize that there is another party (usually with a liberal agenda) deciding which fractions of the dialogue you see, and which you don't. Right?

---

Well he's been interviewed by Fox news about 20 times now, so most of those interviews I assume aren't being edited with a liberal bias. Lou Dobbs basically sucked his cock for an hour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

These sentiments exist within Trump. Denying that, wuf, is positively silly.

---

Where are the examples?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I'd like to see some of this 'very very strong' evidence that Trump holds equality among the races (or sexes for that matter) in high regard. And not just Hannity said so kind of evidence, but actually something tangible he's said or done. And by 'tangible' I don't mean hiring a jewish person to do his taxes or tipping a black waiter.

---

He was quite seriously considered among the most equality-minded famous people in the entire country until he ran for president. His campaign broke the "glass ceiling" for women. Every claim of him being racist or sexist so far holds no water. He virtually never talks in terms of race; it's his media agenda-driven antagonists who can't get race out of their heads and blame him of the very thing they do (standard). Even when the opportunity arises to discuss race, he rarely ever does it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wuf

To get to that point, a person has to kinda think like "blacks are like this, whites are like this, latinos are like this....",

---

A person who thinks like that is a racist, wuf. It's the definition of racism to assign character traits to someone based on their race.

This reads like someone struggling to justify harboring racist thoughts as somehow a morally upright position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wuf

and the moment somebody does something that doesn't confirm to that person's views on race, it's racism.

---

The person holding expectations of someone's behavior or personality on the basis of race is the racist. Whether they notice any inconsistency in their views is a totally different matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wuf

That looks to me like it could be a type of racism in itself.

---

You're much smarter than this.

Argumentative idiots who are self-righteous and looking for a target's buttons to push are not always racists. I mean, sure they could be, but not based on them being self-righteous idiots.

Judging someone for the choices they make is the opposite of judging someone you know nothing about, and the reason racism is illegal and hating is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

He was quite seriously considered among the most equality-minded famous people in the entire country until he ran for president. His campaign broke the "glass ceiling" for women. Every claim of him being racist or sexist so far holds no water. He virtually never talks in terms of race; it's his media agenda-driven antagonists who can't get race out of their heads and blame him of the very thing they do (standard). Even when the opportunity arises to discuss race, he rarely ever does it.

---

None of this is tangible evidence. "Considered among the most equality-minded.." by whom? And why? What has he actually said or done to earn this reputation?

"His campaign broke the glass ceiling for women" ? Really? How? Because KAC was his campaign advisor or whatever? Or wow that's a joke right?

The rest of what you're saying is just claiming his opponents are lying when they report what he says, or wrongly interpreting it.

At this point it might make sense to clearly define racism. While there undeniably are varying "degrees" of racism, or rather more or less morally questionable stances, it does seem like some are thinking anything south of KKK = not racist. Personally Ithink MMM put it well, racism is a racial bias, treating someone differently just based on their race/ethnicity. These biases might be negative or positive, but they're still racism.

I'd also make a clear distinction between verifiable statistics and treating someone according to them. Let's say statistics clearly indicate (I have no idea if they do) that asian-americans excel in maths compared to some other groups. If that is the case, saying it out loud is a fact, not racism. However, treating an individual based on this statistical fact, whether preferentially or discriminately, is racism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Ithink MMM put it well, racism is a racial bias, treating someone differently just based on their race/ethnicity. These biases might be negative or positive, but they're still racism.

---

When I'm president, I'm going to make it a law that all doors have to be automatic sliders, like the starship enterprise. I am so god damn fucking sick of holding doors for people, it's not even funny.

Until that happens (Vote Banana in 2032), I'm stuck with this ridiculous system we have in this country. Apparently people believe that opening a door more than once in a span of ten seconds makes babies get AIDS or something. But I'm fighting back....if you're more than 2 seconds away from the door, my policy is "fuck you, your arms work, I've got shit to do"

Except when it's a black person.

I give black people a few extra seconds, because I don't wanna let the door shut and have that person think I'm a racist.

Is that racist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Even Banana can see you're out on a limb here..

---

Are you convinced we're different people now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Well he's been interviewed by Fox news about 20 times now, so most of those interviews I assume aren't being edited with a liberal bias. Lou Dobbs basically sucked his cock for an hour.

---

And specifically, what did he say to Fox that has been construed as racist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Where are the examples?

---

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.

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

When I'm president, I'm going to make it a law that all doors have to be automatic sliders, like the starship enterprise. I am so god damn fucking sick of holding doors for people, it's not even funny.

---

You need to find better things to care about imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

....if you're more than 2 seconds away from the door, my policy is "fuck you, your arms work, I've got shit to do"

Except when it's a black person.

I give black people a few extra seconds, because I don't wanna let the door shut and have that person think I'm a racist.

Is that racist?

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

wrongly interpreting it.

---

That's it.

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.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...racism-w497876

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

"Ms Housekeeping"

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

"grab her by the pussy"

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

And specifically, what did he say to Fox that has been construed as racist?

---

Well when you're thrown a series of softballs and have your own balls sucked for an hour, how can you go wrong?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

He said something that most people have said and something that is totally true. There was absolutely nothing objectifying of women in that.

Hint: he said that when you're a star you can grab a woman by the pussy and she likes it.

---

Whoaaa, back up.

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

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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?

---

You're treading into Kellyanne Conway truth-spinning here.

A better question to ask is if you do say this, how can it NOT be construed as racist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Also, you are either making that up about all your women friends or you and I move in entirely different circles.

---

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 wufwugy

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.

---

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 Poopadoop

A better question to ask is if you do say this, how can it NOT be construed as racist?

---

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?

Rigor is great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

A better question to ask is if you do say this, how can it NOT be construed as racist?

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

It's clear that minorities in this country are struggling.

---

It is? Jews are struggling? Filipinos? Chinese? Irish? Italians?

No, the struggling groups are those that have been targeted by race-baiters who trade welfare and victimology for votes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

It is? Jews are struggling? Filipinos? Chinese? Irish? Italians?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Because appropriating stereotypes for humorous purposes is not racist.

---

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 wufwugy

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.

---

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 )

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....."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

First off, it isn't race but nationality.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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.

---

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

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 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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.

---

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.

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

How is it insensitive when we don't know if he even meant it that way.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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?

---

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

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.

---

Reducto ad absurdum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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.

---

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

I'm saying that when the motivation for why to do that is wrong, it's wrong.[/FONT][/COLOR]

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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.

Key word - "superior".

---

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?

Sounds like an indictment regarding the racist ways people think of these things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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?

---

You're making the assumption that this is Trump's motive, and you're doing so to justify your charge of racism.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You're making the assumption that this is Trump's motive, and you're doing so to justify your charge of racism.

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.

But obviously there's only one way to interpret that insult, just like there's only one way to interpret Mr. Petrol Station.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

No, you're trying to find a loophole whereby calling a hispanic woman Ms. Housekeeping isn't racist, but something else.

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.

You can interpret it how you like, but it's your interpretation of racism. And it's wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Again, superiority. Based on race.

---

That's pretty much the very definition of racism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

That's pretty much the very definition of racism.

---

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 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.

---

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 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.

---

Well then you're not sure about the definition of racism.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Well then you're not sure about the definition of racism.

---

Pot/Kettle situation brewing here.

Quote:

---

If I call a Chinese person a Chinky,

---

C'mon, you can do better

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

---

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:

---

This is what I mean about the word "racism" being diluted from its original meaning.

---

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:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

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.

---

Exactly.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

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.

---

"Get away with it" means "not be punished."

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by banana

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.

---

Ok, so please explain to me how an insulting word demonstrates a belief that my race is superior to another.