Is the world becoming more racist?

[Zinzan]

Word on the street is Clarke may end up be leading the Department of Homeland Security.

 

[straw man]

The first time I read this I didn't have a particular problem with the point you're making, but the more I think about it the more troublesome it is.

I am not talking about moral relativism in that sense that no one can judge anybody because morality and values are subjective and relative. It is in this particular case and context that your objection is misplaced. We are not talking about defending a fringe of loonies based on moral relativism, we are talking about half a country.

I don't see why the number of people holding a view is particularly relevant to whether the view should be respected. Understanding, yes you would always seek that, but respect, not automatically. You say you're not promoting moral relativism but then I can't see any framework in your post for actually deciding where this starts and stops. Who decides what's a 'fringe of loonies' and what's not? I think in particular the 'fringe' part of that i.e. the number of people, is irrelevant.

Anyway, my ire against Trump voters is as much about his views (and likely outcomes thereof) that they're ignoring rather than actually necessarily holding themselves.

It is ironic that the same Left that screams prejudice at the Right can then judge a whole populous of people as racist or bigoted simply because they voted differently. There was little to no objection when people, based on race, were voting for Obama or based on gender for Clinton; but somehow the Right is supposed to be looked down on for looking after their own interests? That is simply the crux of the issue: everyone is voting for their own interests and you or the party you support are no different. This isn't a small group that has taken the country by hostage, this is just the other side of the coin.

You're talking to me here, not some amorphous blob of 'the Left', so the massive generalisation you've made above is misplaced. I know there are people shouting 'racist' and 'bigot' here and there, though there's plenty more nuanced views than that too.

Clearly from what I've posted I do believe Trump is well outside the zone of reasonable disagreement in opinion. Why? Combination of the below:
- US president is commander-in-chief so this intemperate, tantrum-throwing man has enormous power to start or escalate military conflict.
- Aggressive pursuit of racial, sectarian and other divisions, one group over another. Tyranny of the majority.
- Sees the institutions that limit his power as impediments to be removed e.g. laws, courts, press.
- No morality. Everything is about power and ego. Facts are irrelevant. Lying is second nature. No limits, no compassion, no empathy.

Agreeing with his positions above is obviously awful, but I also don't have any time for the ignoring of these factors, or at best being so naive as to think they don't matter. I find the argument that he might not do what he's said he's going to do incredibly weak. I mean, maybe. We'll all be holding our breath. But you wouldn't take the risk to actually vote for him.

Ftr there's not a single other vote in the Anglo world in my lifetime that I would say is beyond debate like this. Not Brexit. Not George W Bush. This is different. This has more in common with Erdogan in Turkey, Orban in Hungary, Morsi in Egypt and perhaps Bellusconi in Italy. Except in the most powerful nation in the world.

 

[Ikki]

I don't see why the number of people holding a view is particularly relevant to whether the view should be respected. Understanding, yes you would always seek that, but respect, not automatically. You say you're not promoting moral relativism but then I can't see any framework in your post for actually deciding where this starts and stops. Who decides what's a 'fringe of loonies' and what's not? I think in particular the 'fringe' part of that i.e. the number of people, is irrelevant.

Anyway, my ire against Trump voters is as much about his views (and likely outcomes thereof) that they're ignoring rather than actually necessarily holding themselves.

I'm not going to pretend to know the answer nor would I entertain anyone who thinks they do have an answer. My point is just a suggestion: if we are going to pretend that people don't have legitimate gripes then we have to balance the utility of ignoring them. You call them crazy and they call you crazy, so where does that actually get you apart from the nice feeling you have when you **** on someone else for not 'getting it'?

I'm just being practical. If there are racists voting for him does that devalue the movement altogether? As much as it is convenient to pretend Trump is a KKK member, this isn't even close to being true. That's where I'd suggest that having a large populous of people being crazy as the actual point where you stop differentiating and do call them out. But again, it goes both ways: there are plenty of fascists on the left voting in their policies...does that totally devalue that movement? I suggest not, but that's just my opinion. If you want to say there is no reason at all to vote for Trump, that's on you. But they'll say you're just as despicable for wanting to vote for Hillary. If there was an actual candidate that was decent, you might have had a point.

You're talking to me here, not some amorphous blob of 'the Left', so the massive generalisation you've made above is misplaced. I know there are people shouting 'racist' and 'bigot' here and there, though there's plenty more nuanced views than that too.

You're generalising against them, so why do you expect an answer that specifies just you? That's pretty convenient because it allows you to say what you want about a mass of people and then defend yourself when the hypocritical stances are aimed back at you.

Clearly from what I've posted I do believe Trump is well outside the zone of reasonable disagreement in opinion. Why? Combination of the below:
- US president is commander-in-chief so this intemperate, tantrum-throwing man has enormous power to start or escalate military conflict.
- Aggressive pursuit of racial, sectarian and other divisions, one group over another. Tyranny of the majority.
- Sees the institutions that limit his power as impediments to be removed e.g. laws, courts, press.
- No morality. Everything is about power and ego. Facts are irrelevant. Lying is second nature. No limits, no compassion, no empathy.

Agreeing with his positions above is obviously awful, but I also don't have any time for the ignoring of these factors, or at best being so naive as to think they don't matter. I find the argument that he might not do what he's said he's going to do incredibly weak. I mean, maybe. We'll all be holding our breath. But you wouldn't take the risk to actually vote for him.

Ftr there's not a single other vote in the Anglo world in my lifetime that I would say is beyond debate like this. Not Brexit. Not George W Bush. This is different. This has more in common with Erdogan in Turkey, Orban in Hungary, Morsi in Egypt and perhaps Bellusconi in Italy. Except in the most powerful nation in the world.

-As opposed to cold, callous murderers that send in drones to kill people but are politically savvy enough to appeal to young people?
-This goes for every President in memory and the mistake is thinking rhetoric is more important than policies.
-Again, since the Patriot Act came we've had had other Presidents, why is this a talking point now?
-I don't even like Trump, but this is clearly nonsense. And again, a lot of this can be pinned at any other President in memory.

I think this is where the discussion between us ends because IMO you're lacking the perspective that would show you that he's not all that different and that other people (a **** ton of them) will disagree with your characterisation of that. But of course, they're crazy...

 

[Spark]

Eh, rhetoric matters for a President. Most of his power is indirect domestically, in the sense of being a leader rather than legislative, so what you say is enormously important. Particularly when it comes to social cohesion.

 

[watson]

Eh, rhetoric matters for a President. Most of his power is indirect domestically, in the sense of being a leader rather than legislative, so what you say is enormously important. Particularly when it comes to social cohesion.

Only if you allow the 'progessive-Left' to turn language into a fetish where we pathetically hang onto every word, while all the time ignoring what's actually happening in reality.

In the end, it's the day-to-day reality of living that really matters - which is why Clinton lost and Trump won.

In the states that matter the majority of people went "living sux" for a number of reasons - "I can't afford my mortgage" , "My company has folded and I can't find a job", "No one in my neighborhood speaks a goddam word of English", "My tree-lined street has just been demolished to make way for blocks of flats", "I've been held at knife point and robbed 5 times", "My daughter has been killed in action while fighting for a Neo-Con cause that I don't believe in", "My son is a heroin addict"........etc.

 

[Zinzan]

Eh, rhetoric matters for a President. Most of his power is indirect domestically, in the sense of being a leader rather than legislative, so what you say is enormously important. Particularly when it comes to social cohesion.

I think this point is overplayed personally.

Rightly or wrongly, policy & the prospect and jobs trump personality (pun intended) to many struggling middle-class Americans, especially in rural America. They care about getting food on the table for the 3 kids. That's their priority.

 

[Spark]

I think this point is overplayed personally.

Rightly or wrongly, policy & the prospect and jobs trump personality (pun intended) to many struggling middle-class Americans, especially in rural America. They care about getting food on the table for the 3 kids. That's their priority.

Sure, but my point is that the President has no direct ability to influence that. All he can do is "provide leadership", which means saying stuff (outlining priorities, applying public pressure, leading a debate etc etc)

 

[Ikki]

Eh, rhetoric matters for a President. Most of his power is indirect domestically, in the sense of being a leader rather than legislative, so what you say is enormously important. Particularly when it comes to social cohesion.

I'm not saying it is not important, I'm saying it is not as important as actual policies. What is better: to have a candidate with harsh rhetoric and benign policies; or a candidate that has benign rhetoric and harsh policies?

The difference is clear and yet some are more worried about what certain rhetoric can suggest rather than definitive actions of people that have already been voted in and continue to abuse peoples' trust. It's for the same reason that people blindly follow palatable rhetoric that Trump supporters purposely ignored it.

And TBF, criticism is fine but a lot of stuff surrounding Trump has been way overblown. People also became desensitised to the sensationalism. Personally, I think Trump is dangerous because it looks like he has connections with the Russians and who knows what can come of that but no one knows what he is going to do. If he really does act like the Grand Wizard of the USA and people then do not stop him, then I think these reactions would feel appropriate.

 

[indiaholic]

Think that Trump will benefit massively from the ridiculously low standard we are holding him to. If gay marriage stays in place, a majority of states vote to retain abortions or if women just manage to travel to other states for abortions then people will be asking what the big deal was.

 

[Ikki]

 

[Ikki]

 

[Ikki]

 

[Ausage]

Ugh. Kasparian is such a sad individual.

 

[Zinzan]

It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad that the irony is lost on her.

Folks like Kasparian so often want to talk about terms like 'privilege', yet she can't seem to get through her tiny brain that folks in places like York, Pennsylvania; have a poverty rate of close to 40% (across all residents) & a childhood poverty rate of over 50%.

Yet, she wants their political priorities to be the same as hers. Incredible ignorance when you think about it; & quite indicative of just how out of touch some of these celebrity/well-off liberals really are. It's all just so easy and black and white (excuse the pun) for them in their relatively simple lives.

 

[Zinzan]

Think that Trump will benefit massively from the ridiculously low standard we are holding him to. If gay marriage stays in place, a majority of states vote to retain abortions or if women just manage to travel to other states for abortions then people will be asking what the big deal was.

Agree with this. According to his recent 60 minutes interview, he doesn't seem concerned about gay marriage & even though he said he will appoint conservative judges on the supreme court, he suggested he'd prefer abortion to be decided at State level.

Although I'm on the pro-choice side of that argument, you can't say the decision being made at state level un-democratic.

 

[zorax]

Lots of interesting points being raised here.

My stance is quite clear to me now.

Yes Hilary is an awful person who has done awful things. She's corrupt, manipulative, war hungry. She's even quite possibly a sociopath. But to me, all that is a lot more acceptable than openly making racist/sexist/xenophobic remarks.

I think that's because to me, at the end of the day, things like wall street, the job market, taxes, money exchange hands in politics...all this stuff pales in comparison to Social issues.

The society you live in matters so much. No amount of infrastructure or job opportunities can make life bearable if you live every minute aware that you are considered a second-class citizen because of your race/religion/sexual preference. I can't imagine living my life knowing that my President has openly spoken out against people who look like me, or is intolerant to those who share my same beliefs.

And yes what the President/Head of a Nation says matters. It matters a hell lot. They address the nation in times of crisis. You learn about them and their predecessors in school. They are held up as representative of the community you live in, a sort of role model/epitome of the society and it's beliefs and values.

And I know this is kinda ****ed up for a massively large nation. One person can never adequately represent 300 million. Or 1.2 billion. Heck it isn't enough to even represent 10 thousand. But that is just the way it is. And those of us here in this thread talking about it will have questioned it and approached it from different angles and dissected it and maybe the role isn't as precious or impressive to us. But we are such a small tiny minority. The social influence a head of the nation holds is unquestionably large. Especially when that nation is the United States of America.

So yes, I don't give a **** that Hilary was crooked and corrupt and had blood on her hands. The current US president has openly spoken out against minority groups. He has sexually harassed women. He was endorsed by the ****ing KKK.

If I were a minority living in the USA, I'd be horrified. And I would give a **** if our economy rose by 2 points because he cut taxes and placed tarrifs on Chinese imports.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Ugh. Kasparian is such a sad individual.

It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad that the irony is lost on her.

Folks like Kasparian so often want to talk about terms like 'privilege', yet she can't seem to get through her tiny brain that folks in places like York, Pennsylvania; have a poverty rate of close to 40% (across all residents) & a childhood poverty rate of over 50%.

Yet, she wants their political priorities to be the same as hers. Incredible ignorance when you think about it; & quite indicative of just how out of touch some of these celebrity/well-off liberals really are. It's all just so easy and black and white (excuse the pun) for them in their relatively simple lives.

Look, I'm no Kasparian fan. I loathe TYT with a passion.

But the irony here is incredible. You've been saying, quite fairly, that elite liberals have been condescending in their approach to discussing issues with the right and that they've unfairly labeled trump voters stupid and racist. And yet here you are, saying she has a tiny brain. Walk the talk, guys.

 

[Zinzan]

Look, I'm no Kasparian fan. I loathe TYT with a passion.

But the irony here is incredible. You've been saying, quite fairly, that elite liberals have been condescending in their approach to discussing issues with the right and that they've unfairly labeled trump voters stupid and racist. And yet here you are, saying she has a tiny brain. Walk the talk, guys.

That's complete garbage, I know you're dying to disagree and all, but please get what I'm calling her out on right ffs.

I'm not calling her out for her leftist political philosophy, I'm calling her out because made some stupid ignorant blanket statements about ALL women who voted for Trump. I'm calling her tiny brain because as a relatively well-off semi-celebrity reporter, she's clearly out of touch with what some working class poor rural families political priorities are.

For her to make the blanket generic statement of "**** all women who voted for Trump" proves her ignorance. Ignorance to the fact that many of those voters would have been disgusted with some of Trump's words, but they still see his candidacy as the best thing for themselves and their families.

I get she's emotional and throwing her toys out of the cot, but that's an ignorant and incredibly unsophisticated position for someone who calls themselves a political commentator to make, completely lacking of nuance or any deep thought.

 

[Zinzan]

Lots of interesting points being raised here.

My stance is quite clear to me now.

Yes Hilary is an awful person who has done awful things. She's corrupt, manipulative, war hungry. She's even quite possibly a sociopath. But to me, all that is a lot more acceptable than openly making racist/sexist/xenophobic remarks.

I think that's because to me, at the end of the day, things like wall street, the job market, taxes, money exchange hands in politics...all this stuff pales in comparison to Social issues.

The society you live in matters so much. No amount of infrastructure or job opportunities can make life bearable if you live every minute aware that you are considered a second-class citizen because of your race/religion/sexual preference. I can't imagine living my life knowing that my President has openly spoken out against people who look like me, or is intolerant to those who share my same beliefs.

And yes what the President/Head of a Nation says matters. It matters a hell lot. They address the nation in times of crisis. You learn about them and their predecessors in school. They are held up as representative of the community you live in, a sort of role model/epitome of the society and it's beliefs and values.

And I know this is kinda ****ed up for a massively large nation. One person can never adequately represent 300 million. Or 1.2 billion. Heck it isn't enough to even represent 10 thousand. But that is just the way it is. And those of us here in this thread talking about it will have questioned it and approached it from different angles and dissected it and maybe the role isn't as precious or impressive to us. But we are such a small tiny minority. The social influence a head of the nation holds is unquestionably large. Especially when that nation is the United States of America.

So yes, I don't give a **** that Hilary was crooked and corrupt and had blood on her hands. The current US president has openly spoken out against minority groups. He has sexually harassed women. He was endorsed by the ****ing KKK.

If I were a minority living in the USA, I'd be horrified. And I would give a **** if our economy rose by 2 points because he cut taxes and placed tarrifs on Chinese imports.

All of that is well & good, & I totally see & respect that side of the argument. I can also see & respect the argument from a Pennsylvanian ex-factory worker, who can't get a job, is struggling to get food on the table for the kids, & is utterly disillusioned and cynical about his/her current government.

All some of us have been saying is it's a bit simplistic & rich to make blanket statements about folks putting the livelihood of their own families first, and hence having different priorities politically-speaking than you would.

The point that seems to be lost is in some voters minds, putting their own situation (desperate in many cases) above social issues, which you've decided should be the number 1 voting criteria, does not actually make them all racists.

Even if Trump has been taken out of context at times, there's no question he's picked some of his words terribly, & spoken some absolute tripe throughout this campaign, like his proposal of temporary banning muslims entering the country was.

Since he's softened that position to one of 'extreme vetting' from countries harbouring terrorists, I don't know of any actual policies that are extreme at all, only in the interest of American citizens, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

The only group I feel his policies may impact are illegal immigrants; & why can't anyone be honest & philosophically consistent about this? If you cross the border illegally, you're NOT an American citizen. It's weird people act like under Obama's regime, it was perfectly legal for non-citizens to cross the border & only now that bad bogey-man Trump is in power will they start securing their borders more seriously and looking into this situation of illegals.

I don't know any Trump proposed policies that are a threat to black families wanting the best for their families & communities... although I can see that the inner city gangs won't be too thrilled.

Everyone has different priorities when they vote, and whilst I respect that yours would be social issues, I also respect for others it could be about jobs or something else, yet you can't seem to see any other motivation from these Trump voters that isn't driven by racism.

 

[indiaholic]

Do you think Trump's policies will be effective at bringing back factory jobs?