OT: Politics

[pbjosh]

I wasn't trying to be a smart ass, I was trying to better understand your position because your response seemed to describe language I saw as racist as "rhetoric building."

Which did you see? Remember, stating a person or demographics race is not racism. Per the expert.

Edit - sorry, had people at my desk. I might not perceive the same comment as 'racist' if I understand what the rhetoric is, and why it is being used. I can not spend every moment in other people's perception though. Hence, why I used the word rhetoric.

the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.

language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.

Wishy washy words used deliberately to evoke a response - take this statement:

"there are "middle easterners"

Is used to bring up the image of 9/11 bombers. Because....yeah, we all know why. It is stupid rhetoric, but I wouldn't consider it racist. Stupid, yeah. Rhetoric, heck yeah. But as it seems to have to be pointed out, hating a religion is not racism.

[cockerpunk]

Which did you see? Remember, stating a person or demographics race is not racism. Per the expert.

he very correctly pointed out racist dog whistles (really more like bullhorns).

you tried to make it seem like stating "white people" was racist. its not.

[pbjosh]

As a counter comment, would any of this be racist?

Either they both are, or they both are not.

Fixed the link

[cockerpunk]

As a counter comment, would any of this be racist?

Either they both are, or they both are not.

any of what?

mentioning "white people" for example, isn't racism.

[ironyusa]

I understand what you are saying and I agree it's overused in some wings of the democratic party.

If you're going to say "however" it lessens the front part of your statement. If it is used at all, then it's egregious. If I say "racism is overused in some wings of the republican party" then it's equally egregious. Racists and extremists that call everything racist (without evidence) are 2 sides of the same coin. They're both idiots. Both attitudes are absolutely reprehensible. Harboring racism is wrong. Harboring this idiotic extremism is wrong. No "however" justifies the behavior. Painting with broad strokes of identity politics removes individual culpability. Racists and extremists are scum.

However, I think the use of particular language to sell particular policies creates is part of the problem. It's a vicious cycle.

Given that 2 wrongs don't make a right, which specific policies & language do you have in mind?

I'm a little confused by what you are saying. What would you define as racist language?

So there's no confusion... Racism is an INDIVIDUALISTIC and EXPLICIT sentiment. A statement can be racist, a policy or a person can be racist. Racial oppression covers the societal system and would involve the power structure, but would contain explicitly racist language as defined by favoring ANY race over another. The reason I mentioned affirmative action up is that it was initially meant to level the playing field, but the subsequent court rulings upheld the interpretation that implementation of the policy can EXPLICITLY FAVOR individuals based on race. That is a racist policy. Again, I'm not saying I disagree with affirmative action, but what specific variables is it meant to balance and when can it go away?

Implicit racial bias is more arguable and creates a healthy discussion framework between individuals. These biases can be educated away, but never will be unless we genuinely care enough about people to embrace our differences but favor our unity. Keep in mind, however, that the socio-economic stratification will create the same outcome correlations as racial imbalances. Unless there is additional information suggesting race was a RELEVANT VARIABLE, then the policy is taken prima facie. The obvious fact being that some racism (and diametrically-opposed extremism) is statistically inevitable. From that standpoint, a statement like:

The way I would put it is the litmus test most GoP policies must pass before the party will support them is that they have to be tolerable to racists, or they risk alienating a large portion of their base.

bears no implications unless you can provide SPECIFIC evidence that the

particular language to sell particular policies

is problematic.

[d0cwho]

Given that 2 wrongs don't make a right, which specific policies & language do you have in mind?

Primarily the discussion regarding immigration has devolved to using dog whistle language. Trump's suggestion that all Mexicans (even though they are not the prime national group that immigrates the U.S. illegally anymore) that attempt to enter the U.S. illegally are rapists and criminals is racist language. It's language that suggests an entire group of people are deficient simply by where they come from. Stating that there are "middle easterners" in a group of individuals seeking entry into the U.S. to infer that being from that region is an automatically bad is racist language. You can also look at the language related to welfare reform, i.e. welfare queens, was directed primarily at African Americans.

Again, I'm not saying the policies themselves are racist, but when language is used that strongly suggests racial animus by the promoter the policy becomes racist.

[cockerpunk]

Primarily the discussion regarding immigration has devolved to using dog whistle language. Trump's suggestion that all Mexicans (even though they are not the prime national group that immigrates the U.S. illegally anymore) that attempt to enter the U.S. illegally are rapists and criminals is racist language. It's language that suggests an entire group of people are deficient simply by where they come from. Stating that there are "middle easterners" in a group of individuals seeking entry into the U.S. to infer that being from that region is an automatically bad is racist language. You can also look at the language related to welfare reform, i.e. welfare queens, was directed primarily at African Americans.

Again, I'm not saying the policies themselves are racist, but when language is used that strongly suggests racial animus by the promoter the policy becomes racist.

plenty of other examples too: white unvaccinated people = god given right, brown vaccinated people = dirty unhealthy and diseased.

also, amazing how folks with small pox can walk 1600 miles in a week, and that we need 5:1 numerical superiority and machine guns to stop them. i propose if this is true, we need to breed with these super humans, and absorb there super-strength.

[pbjosh]

Primarily the discussion regarding immigration has devolved to using dog whistle language.

It has. Though this is a bit off:

Trump's suggestion that all Mexicans (even though they are not the prime national group that immigrates the U.S. illegally anymore) that attempt to enter the U.S. illegally are rapists and criminals is racist language.

He is clever enough to say some, or "There are" - He hasn't said all of them are. He will say MS-13 are animals, but not all Mexicans. I realize he conflates the subject and talks inelegantly enough that it is easy to think he is saying that. If you look at his quotes you can see the weasel words in there - and it gets you thinking that all of them are - and arguing it on the internet.

It really is an interesting verbal use. By not being totally clear and using just enough verbiage to cover himself he is being factual in the direct words, but he is implying for more. It is a persuasion technique. Once you know about it you can see how underhanded it is.

Take his "I will build the greatest wall!" stuff. Now you are going, no way, your wall is going to suck. Which means you are accepting that there is a wall.

Look at how Gordon replies. The reason I am not interacting with him is because he does something similar. I realized he almost always misquotes a person.

So of course, you are drawn in to correct the obvious misuse of your word. It is a driver for most of us, to correct where somebody got our intent wrong. We almost can not help replying. I have no idea if it is deliberate or not, but when you realize it is there, you can avoid it.

Trump does the same thing. It is there to get people all buzzed up and talking and going in 100 wrong directions.

Then he passes a boring little bill on taxes, and you barely cared because he kind said something a person can read wrong.

It is just leading the media around by the nose, and they are jumping to one bad conclusion after another. But if you dissect his actual quotes you can he is just pulling the same chains Gordon does.

You all are smarter than that. Once you see it for the gigantic Troll it really is, it is kinda obnoxious and there is no reason to follow that whistle.

[cockerpunk]

i just see the dog-whistle for what it is and am not pedantic about it. there is nothing the world more boring and pointless than pedantry.



ironically, his supporters also see the dog whistle for what it is too. why right wing violence and terrorism is up at record levels these days. watch what the nazis say about trump ... they see the dog-whistles for what they are. watch the interviews with his rally goers ... they see the dog whistles for what they are.



you have to purposefully try to turn a blind eye to it with pedantry. oh, the fact tha for 3 plus years hes been spouting dog whistles can't possibly mean he is suing racist messaging to motivate the base ... no, each one of these cases has a highly complex, backwards meaning that only i know, and no one else knows, after all, trump eats burritos, he can't hate mexicans!

this is why i come to the conclusion so often that you are either a moron, or willfully lying. and i actually cannot decide which one is worse.

[pbjosh]

Ah, the Personal Insult Bait.

Ignoring it Gordon. Talk like a real person and actually try to not insult everyone's intelligence with 5th grade taunts for a while and you might deserve a reply.