The American Politics Thread

Logan wrote: SteveG wrote: Logan wrote: I hate Trump as much as the next guy, more so if he is a Trump supporter, but is Trump definitely a racist? He panders to racists/ white supremacists, which seems opportunistic to me, but I don't know his ideological views when it comes to race issues. Have people become so immune to Trump's antics that his racism is now questioned? Greg, Trump has no spoken ideology other then calling himself a nationalist, which in itself has racist overtones. But this is simple logic: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck. But to illustrate, here's the latest Trump racist rant and backlash as told by the NY Times: ... Media Giants Recoil From Caravan Ad Called Racist. Sorry snipping out the article, but its full of code. I have now watched the ad itself. I've heard it as "then it probably is a duck." It provides evidence but not certainty. The duck test is a sort of proof by association (proof in the logic sense). If any assumptions are off or if the observer is in error then the argument fails. It could be that you mistook a duck for a goose (though they are in the same waterfowl family and a goose can be called a duck), or it's a robot cleverly designed to act and look like a duck, or it's a human who is a very good duck impersonator, maybe its some new breed of species with duck-like qualities without being of the anatidae (my nickname for my wife incidentally) family. Maybe it's an alien species with amazing mimicry skills. Knowledge which is reliable should be confirmed in various ways to make as certain as one can of the veracity (one cannot be absolutely sure of anything including that one can cannot be certain of anything, but the more evidence one has and the more approaches to discerning a thing, the more probably an assertion). While I suspect that Trump has racist tendencies and he appeals to racists, that ad does not prove that he is racist. I would even question that the ad is surely racist. I still think that he's an immoral opportunist with sociopathic traits who is fine with appealing to racists and culturalists and may be racist himself. The caravan ad is meant to appeal to people's fears, it appeals to xenophobes, and appeals to people's cultural and ethnic biases, and no doubt appeals to genuine racists (in the sense of those who consider a particular race or races inherently superior to another), but it does not prove Trump to be inherently racist.   I'm not sure if Hispanic even is a race (many reject the concept of race altogether) as Hispanics are of mixed "races" (diverse genetics). It's closer to ethnicity. But yes, I'm sure many people think, oh no, the brown hordes are coming and they're bringing crime and Trump knows that and appeals to that sentiment. While guilt by association is considered to be an ad hominem fallacy, who he is associating with and trying to appeal to does say much about his character. And being nationalistic does have racist overtones, and racial nationalism has more than overtones, but one can be nationalistic while not being at all racist. Racism need not be a motivating factor in the nationalism, though historically, and now, it has tended to be a factor. Trump clearly appeals to White Nationalists and he has low to no moral character. As for me, I prefer internationalism. Like most people, I have cultural and sub-cultural biases but I don[t see my race as superior in any way. I like the thought that as more people get their DNA tested, people will care less about racial purity and even concepts of race. I'm blonde haired and blue eyed, but I had mine done and I'm like 20 percent Ashkenazi Jew, which I didn't know, and have Malay blood (which I did know). We're all originally African according to what is thought to be true. I think that if Trump felt that he would benefit from showing, say, migrants, in a positive light, then that's what he would do as I think that he's an immoral, narcissistic, selfish opportunist and bullsh*t artist who only really cares about himself (and that which effects himself).

Whoa! Where do we start here? Greg, mislabeling a goose as a duck is one thing but rationalizing that a duck is really a goose is something different and untrue. And that's what I feel that you're trying to argue here, but I'm not up to arguing semantics with you.

Edited by SteveG - November 07 2018 at 15:29

Edited by npjnpj - November 07 2018 at 15:43

HackettFan wrote: Logan wrote: HackettFan wrote: Logan wrote: Man With Hat wrote: Logan wrote: I hate Trump as much as the next guy, more so if he is a Trump supporter, but is Trump definitely a racist? He panders to racists/ white supremacists, which seems opportunistic to me, but I don't know his ideological views when it comes to race issues.   From a practical standpoint, what's the difference? If you are a racist or just pander/empower/support/etc racist the end results, the real world results, are the same.  If one is only interested in the utilitarian standpoint, then okay, but from a non-teleological philosophical and psychological standpoint, and the lexicological angle, the difference can be of interest. The psychological standpoint is only as good as the "utilitarian" standpoint, unless one just sticks it in an unexaminable black box. Since you hadn't done that with your other diagnoses (narcissism, etc.), I don't understand the your distinction. One can only ever infer cognitive states from outward behavior. I concede that it is true that asserting things about other people's psychological states is rude, especially so in some other cultures and even the case in our culture as well. However, that is also largely a byproduct of separating the notion of racism from behavior and ethical conduct. That's a very interesting post, and I am very interested in theory of mind. I was being a bit glib and did not phrase things well by putting forward such apparent separation (the framing is off and I actually think quite holistically). I wasn't disagreeing with Phil, as I think he made an interesting point and it is one that I have thought about too. I am interested in both the utilitarian perspective and other aspects that relate to ethics (deontology for instance). I infer that Trump is likely to be narcissistic due to his behavior (the consequences are important to me) and I don't mind someone inferring that he probably is racist due to his behavior -- I'm quite agnostic on that matter, but then I like to be ultimately agnostic on all things. Basically I think all I was badly trying to say is that while I have an interest in the consequences of whatever his mindset is, my interest goes beyond that. I'm interested in the pursuit of truth and accuracy. I know that I could have answered much better and if I could be assed, I would heavily edit my long post to provide more nuance, clarification, and to change some words (I did read the article). I happen to suspect that Trump is racist (at least in some senses of the word) and I infer that by his actions. Rushing a bit, and if this discussion continues, I might have a more cogent response later. EDIT: just to add, I am very interested in Trump's motivations, including whether he is motivated by a sense of personal racism or whether he is not racist himself but exploits racist tendencies in elements of his base. And of course his bases motivations are very interesting. At the least he does empower racists and in one way it doesn't really matter that much if he himself is inherently racist and is merely an opportunist. Trump is such a boor and I'm not more above being insulting towards him than he is to others. I am also concerned with the consequence of Trump's narcissism. I think the extent of it goes beyond an ordinary personality trait and well on into a genuine disorder. We see the consequences of that disorder almost daily in a variety of ways. How so much of the population (and his cabinet) are willing to enable his narcissism is beyond me (although I have a theory that the conservative view of leadership and of patriotism is itself narcissistic). Anyway, I was originally concerned about your argument because it has seemed as though Republicans in the past use the tactic of divorcing psychology from behavior in order to inoculate themselves from racism as an accusation. A - You don't know what's in my heart - sort of thing. However, without telepathy no one would ever be able to conclude that anyone was racist under that level proof. It would become a theory of mind problem then for sure. That is certainly why I think racism ought to be diagnosable by behavioral criteria much like psychological disorders are. It is entirely true that we sometimes make mistakes about people's thought's from outward behavior, though. So, I do understand your agnosticism as a measure of prudence.

Agree with you that "racism ought to be diagnosable by behavioral criteria much like psychological disorders are" and everything else actually.

have noticed that about certain Republicans, not that I listen to or read many Republicans often -- I do read and listen to David Frum quite often and he loathes Trump. Republicans might complain that I'm in an echo chamber. Ultimately I take the view that we don't know anything for certain, so I'm ultimately agnostic on all things, though I do like the assumption that the universe is knowable, but of course there is much more evidence for some things than others and I live my life with many assumptions, some better than others. I operate as if I know certain things, which has saved me from some potentially nasty incidents. ;) But I'm just getting silly again.

By the way, it's interesting that we are now getting to know more about people's characters through brain scans, say fMRI (true feelings and various traits), and examining emotional responses through equivalents to a Voight-Kampff machine. With advances in neuroscience and various technology, perhaps we will have the ability to read people's minds well eventually. That would open up a real privacy can of worms.

SteveG wrote: Logan wrote: SteveG wrote: Logan wrote: I hate Trump as much as the next guy, more so if he is a Trump supporter, but is Trump definitely a racist? He panders to racists/ white supremacists, which seems opportunistic to me, but I don't know his ideological views when it comes to race issues. Have people become so immune to Trump's antics that his racism is now questioned? Greg, Trump has no spoken ideology other then calling himself a nationalist, which in itself has racist overtones. But this is simple logic: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck. But to illustrate, here's the latest Trump racist rant and backlash as told by the NY Times: ... Media Giants Recoil From Caravan Ad Called Racist. Sorry snipping out the article, but its full of code. I have now watched the ad itself. I've heard it as "then it probably is a duck." It provides evidence but not certainty. The duck test is a sort of proof by association (proof in the logic sense). If any assumptions are off or if the observer is in error then the argument fails. It could be that you mistook a duck for a goose (though they are in the same waterfowl family and a goose can be called a duck), or it's a robot cleverly designed to act and look like a duck, or it's a human who is a very good duck impersonator, maybe its some new breed of species with duck-like qualities without being of the anatidae (my nickname for my wife incidentally) family. Maybe it's an alien species with amazing mimicry skills. Knowledge which is reliable should be confirmed in various ways to make as certain as one can of the veracity (one cannot be absolutely sure of anything including that one can cannot be certain of anything, but the more evidence one has and the more approaches to discerning a thing, the more probably an assertion). While I suspect that Trump has racist tendencies and he appeals to racists, that ad does not prove that he is racist. I would even question that the ad is surely racist. I still think that he's an immoral opportunist with sociopathic traits who is fine with appealing to racists and culturalists and may be racist himself. The caravan ad is meant to appeal to people's fears, it appeals to xenophobes, and appeals to people's cultural and ethnic biases, and no doubt appeals to genuine racists (in the sense of those who consider a particular race or races inherently superior to another), but it does not prove Trump to be inherently racist.   I'm not sure if Hispanic even is a race (many reject the concept of race altogether) as Hispanics are of mixed "races" (diverse genetics). It's closer to ethnicity. But yes, I'm sure many people think, oh no, the brown hordes are coming and they're bringing crime and Trump knows that and appeals to that sentiment. While guilt by association is considered to be an ad hominem fallacy, who he is associating with and trying to appeal to does say much about his character. And being nationalistic does have racist overtones, and racial nationalism has more than overtones, but one can be nationalistic while not being at all racist. Racism need not be a motivating factor in the nationalism, though historically, and now, it has tended to be a factor. Trump clearly appeals to White Nationalists and he has low to no moral character. As for me, I prefer internationalism. Like most people, I have cultural and sub-cultural biases but I don[t see my race as superior in any way. I like the thought that as more people get their DNA tested, people will care less about racial purity and even concepts of race. I'm blonde haired and blue eyed, but I had mine done and I'm like 20 percent Ashkenazi Jew, which I didn't know, and have Malay blood (which I did know). We're all originally African according to what is thought to be true. I think that if Trump felt that he would benefit from showing, say, migrants, in a positive light, then that's what he would do as I think that he's an immoral, narcissistic, selfish opportunist and bullsh*t artist who only really cares about himself (and that which effects himself). Whoa! Where do we start here? Greg, mislabeling a goose as a duck is one thing but rationalizing that a duck is really a goose is something different and untrue. And that's what I feel that you're trying to argue here, but I'm not up to arguing semantics with you. But to use your example of Trump appealing to xenophobes then just strike out xenophobe and insert something like neo-nazi. Is a xenophobe really that different from a neo-nazi? Does deriding brown skinned Hispanic people as a lesser form of humanity really that much different from old Nazis or neo-nazis deriding Jews as subhumans? If Trump's ad portrayed a jew in place of the Latino man then there would be no problem in universally condemning Trump as a racist. Remember the old cop shows that closed by saying "The identities have been changed to protect the innocent"? Look at it this way: The identities of the victims have have been changed but the crimes against them continue. We just haven't seen these crimes carried out yet to violent ends, but you don't need to be a prophet to see that it's coming.  Un-exploded pipe bombs should have been a wake up call but it's now just another thing instigated by Trump and just another thing that will probably be rationalized into being normal. Edit: If I had to change one thing from my view its that Trump is a covert racist instead of an overt one. But a rose by any other name..

I'm glad you took a gander. One might say that the goose is symbolic of Donald Duck, erm, Trump. His fans thought that he was going to lay a beautiful golden egg, but the clear-sighted discerned that the Trump dump was in fact a giant turd. Really, I was just pointing out that that which walks like a duck and quacks like a duck is not necessarily a duck -- it might be a very deformed llama, but more likely it is in fact a duck. ;)

And not argue semantics with me, that seems to be just about the only type of argument I ever have. ;)

"Is a xenophobe really that different from a Neo-Nazi?"

I'd just say that while Neo-Nazis display xenophobia, not all xenophobes are Neo-Nazis. Fear of the "other" is common and tribalism is common -- it can be found in cultures across the world and species other than human. Certainly some evolutionary biologists claim that it has evolutionary roots. Territorialism has been common throughout human history -- to protect the resources that may be limited, to protect one's family, to protect one's tribe from a real or perceived threat etc.

"Does deriding brown skinned Hispanic people as a lesser form of humanity really that much different from old Nazis or neo-nazis deriding Jews as subhumans?"

That sounds much the same to me.

"If Trump's ad portrayed a jew in place of the Latino man then there would be no problem in universally condemning Trump as a racist."

I'm just picturing a well-groomed Jared Kushner in place of the Latino in the ad. People might find that funny (perhaps seen as a spoof in bad taste) especially if he was wearing a freshly pressed suit and a tie in place of a "dangerous illegal criminal like the cop killer" Luis Bracamontes (who has been convicted and of course is not in the "caravan"). Incidentally, I have found it rather strange that so many Neo-Nazis support Trump considering that he has an apparently beloved daughter who converted to Judaism, but I know it's a lot more complex than that and that would take a lot more words.

It was a despicable, sensationalist, fear-mongering, misleading and insensitive slice of propaganda that seems designed to appeal to racists and might easily be described as of a racist nature. It is the kind of thing that I could imagine coming out of Nazi Germany.   Yeah, if those were Jewish migrants from Montreal playing their fiddles while making their way towards the US border and they then featured some Jewish migrant to the US who like Luis Bracamontes is convicted to heighten the sense of fear, then there would be an even bigger outcry.

"They are coming. People like [but not actually] dangerous illegal bankers like Shlomo Weiss, mad scientists like Albert Einstein whose E = mc^2 imperiled us all [cue mushroom cloud], people like the vile enemy of Oceania and purported author of The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, Emmanuel Goldstein, the body of the even more dangerous when dead communist Karl Marx -- Workers of the World take fright! And Brooklyn born Woody Allen -- lock up your daughters! Stop the exodus! Vote Republican".

I'm not making light of it, it was a bad ad.

A rose by any other name would still smell like sheet. Trump is dangerous, and is certainly playing a role in fomenting violence, discord, racism and a whole lot of stupidity whether or not he actually is a racist.

Still, the ad need not necessarily be seen in a racist light, and could be seen as more of an appeal to cultural fears. If there was a group of modern Vikings sailing across the Atlantic in their longships coming for the shores of America, then an ad might be done in a similar way. And let's assume that they probably are not violent Vikings looking to loot and pillage, they just want a new home cause things are hard back home, what with all the Viking bloodlust back home and lack of good salons. Would people call it racist to the Norse? Maybe. Vikingphobia? Perhaps. It's fear of the other, not necessarily based on race, but on perceived culture. Culturalism doesn't get talked about as much as racism (though the two have a relation).

"They are coming. People like the killer Eric Bloodaxe who murdered his own brothers, and a whole host of Berserkers. Stop the longships! Vote Republican".

Of course there are those who are angry that they think such foreigners might be "stealing" their jobs or getting benefits -- that they will not benefit their society if they manage to come. As I said earlier, if Trump thought that he would personally benefit from bringing in such migrants and supporting such immigration, I strongly believe that he'd be all for the migrants because I don't expect that he stands for much other than himself and that which benefits himself.

Edited by Logan - November 07 2018 at 23:11

^ People, including myself, beat dead horses all the time around here. It "beats" some of the musical dead horse beating that I have tended to participate in. It's good to get involved in more serious topics now and then. Perhaps this conversation would be better suited to the Deep Thinking thread. Honestly, it's been a pleasure chatting with you and others in this thread, and I hope it hasn't been a total slog for you. I enjoy engaging with people in this forum no matter the topic as long as they are pleasant, which you and others have been. So thanks for indulging me even when it comes to my most non-sensical stuff.

Regarding Jared Kushner, that's kind of the point.

Placing the well-groomed, not physically threatening Jared Kushner in the role in contrast to Luis Bracamontes was an attempt at absurdist humorist imagery (so is having vikings coming to modern day America on their longships). I associated him and chose him for being Trump's son-in-law and very much for being benign-looking no matter how dangerous he actually is (which is the other level). Most people, I suspect, wouldn't look at him and see his scandals, or perhaps think of an over-privileged possibly white collar criminal as they see things superficially. Yes, Bracamontes is a "bad" person, but that Mexican is he's also not that relevant to the case of the caravan even if he happens to be an illegal immigrant to the US (which he is, but it's really stretching it to include him in that ad and is just plain fear-mongering). It's clear propaganda coming from the ad, that, as I said, reminds me of something that might come out of Nazi Germany.

Perhaps another picture would be Kirk Douglas in place of Jared Kushner dressed as Spartacus, which I also thought of at the time and might have helped the humour along.

But to get more serious, as I understand it is a serious issue and so attempts at absurdist humour are likely to be seen as very inappropriate, funny or in my case not so-funny, I'm not so much disagreeing with you as putting forward different perspectives and badly attempting some humour at the same time.

By the way, when I originally asked the question if Trump may not be racist but just an opportunist, I really was curious and open-minded -- I still am open-minded. I am ultimately agnostic on the matter even if I suspect that he may be a racist because of his actions. At the least he's morally bankrupt by my reckoning. So in a sense it doesn't matter that much to me if he is a bonerfied racist (say in terms of being a white supremacist) as he empowers racists and looks for their support, but it's the armchair philosopher and psychologist coming out in me. I see Trump as not just immoral but amoral by his actions. Perhaps it's enough that he is okay with racism, empowers racists, and likes racists as long as they like him. I am very convinced that he is a bigot. It is about words and actions for me (it's not like I trust Trump when it comes to what he says anyway -- bigly untruth teller that he is).   I cant read his mind, and don't trust his mouth, but I infer many negative things about him and would not claim that he is not racist -- in almost any case, I think that I would assume a person who is acting like a Trump is a racist, but in his particular case I think it might come down to opportunism and a particular brand of bigotry that may or possibly may not include racism.   Big bigotry, very bad, very bad.

Edited by Logan - November 08 2018 at 08:47

Now... what about Trump firing Jeff Sessions?

still recovering from a brutal last couple of days at work  that started election night..   so still picking at all the fine details of the results.

^ as well as a female native american... plus and a democratic Gov there... then again Kansas is a special case.  Thanks to Brownbeck actually being stupid enough to actually try... really implement consevative ideology into practice.. he destroyed the state economy.

as far as takaways ... have to disagree strongly with our good German friend earlier.   This midterm was as close to a disaster for Trump and the Republicans as might be reasonably expected considering everything. Short of losing the Senate completely it couldn't have got much worse.  And depending upon the Arizona and Florida results.. for all of Trump's victory laps for 'saving the Senate' ummm saving the Senate from himself.. that is rich indeed.. and withTHAT map they had to work with in this election and all of those vulnerable Democratics. They might end up picking up all of 1 seat in the Senate. General wisdome was anything less than a gain of 4 seats was a strategic loss for the Republicans for the map shifts in 2 years to favor Democratic gains in the Senate.. and with a Presidential election driving out voters on top of that.

Edited by micky - November 08 2018 at 22:16

^ You'll get aid. Just say that the perpetual fires are a barrier to the keep Mexicans out.