Vahir wrote:This sort of thinking really annoys me. Yes, Clinton is a hawk, but compared to the republicans who were just given blank check over the country she's practically a dove. A Trump administration invasion of Iran or cold war with Cuba is so much better.
This is merely justifying her as the better of two evils. Which, of course, is the same logic used by Trump voters. Many acknowledge his faults, but saw Clinton as far worse.
I'm all for holding people responsible for still voting for evil. That said, it's a pragmatic choice, so I can't really be upset with them. They're trying to help. And honestly, if we're going by "number of corpses produced" as a decent measurement of Evil, I don't really know if Trump or Clinton would be worse. Predicting the future is hard, and there are significant limitations here. Also, I don't know where one draws the line for responsibility. How much responsibility for Syrian deaths does the US president have? They could get involved more, true. But they're not actually responsible for starting the conflict. It makes measurement a bit fuzzy and subjective.
Tyndmyr,http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/us/po ... .html?_r=0
How much of this did Trump plan? I'm sticking with...0-10%. I only bring it up because you say he's smarter than he lets on. But I can only say he's not as smart as you think he is. It's really hard to quantify though. Was Trump superinsightful, or did he just stick with his plan, and it worked out? Is that his one trick pony, or can Trump adapt? This isn't some 3rd world country that nobody gives a shit about if you make a mistake. Chinese leadership is just as thinskinned and vindictive as Trump.
Smart/dumb is not entirely the same as good leadership. I've known many a person who wasn't the most intellectual sort, but did pretty good due to empathy or other traits. Doing the right thing and knowing the right thing are not entirely the same, even if the latter is helpful for the former.
Sure, Trump is smart. He's also egotistical as hell. Often, he'll say dumb stuff, but it's very frequently ego-related, not a result of actually being dumb. His priorities just place self-promotion far higher than many, many other things. Apparently, this has worked out at least okay for him. Not really a strategy I like, but it doesn't make him stupid. Shit, this might even work. Trump might get China to have a slightly higher level of tolerance for Taiwan. If it does, he does come across as successful to his supporters, and possibly picks up more. China cutting trade with the US would hurt them a lot. He's actually got a fair amount of bargaining power here.
Not that this is comforting, mind you. Generally, I'd prefer stupid opponents over smart ones. Trump seems too comfortable with risk for my preferences.
gmalivuk wrote:@morriswalters: Is it still just a dogwhistle if I'm explicitly saying that they are, in fact, racist?
That part you quoted wasn't me pussyfooting around the claim that they're racist, it was me acknowledging that you're right about there being other reasons to vote for him than racism, but that doesn't absolve them of their willingness to accept racism as part of the deal.
Not a dogwhistle at all. However, at a certain point, discriminators become fairly useless when they're applied to a great many people. How often do you hear someone say that people are stupid? Okay...stupid relative to what?
Yes, Trump supporters are a bit more racist than Clinton supporters, on average. But it's obviously not going to apply to all of them, and observing things like "everyone is racist" doesn't actually provide you with anything useful to act on. Sure, it's totally worth looking at how much racism attracted votes vs scared them off or the like, but at a certain point, it sounds like insulting/fearmongering, not anything actually objective.
I mean, shit, if everyone's racist, then any vote is supporting a racist, yeah? It's just a matter of degree. And you're not looking at the degree very much. The argument isn't persuasive even to people like me who didn't vote for him. It has zero traction outside of your echo chamber. It also is only actually true in a trivial sense. The person who says "people are stupid" isn't actually observing some deep truth. They're merely implicitly claiming that they are smart, relative to everyone else. So it is with "people are racist", or whatever else.
SlyReaper wrote:Racism (bigotry of any stripe, really) is a massive taboo. It's one of the worst things a person can be, short of outright criminality. I find it hard to believe a huge percentage of people can just ignore that. When Trump has attacked Mexicans and Muslims, he's always couched it in terms of their culture being inferior/threatening (or at least, incompatible with western liberalism), not their race. I think that gives people enough wiggle-room to interpret his remarks as not racist - especially if they're predisposed to vote Republican anyway.
It *was* a big taboo. Kind of. In some places. Culture's finicky like that. Racist doesn't even always mean the same thing.
But some people totally are embracing it. I was in Oaklahoma this weekend, and a gas station had a buncha folks in it talking about "the darkies", and they had a "kill the n*****s" sign up in the bathroom. Everyone stopped talking and moved away when I looked at them oddly. Deeply uncomfortable...I have a sneaking suspicion that those chaps were indeed racist. And if called on it, would try to defend it, not justify how they weren't.
Maybe some places were always like this, maybe it's getting worse in some places because the taboo has been overused to apply to everything, and folks are identifying with it. The latter is what worries me...but I'm confident that insulting would do nothing about either of those.
gmalivuk wrote: SlyReaper wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Pretending religious and cultural intolerance are somehow categorically different from racism...
Aren't they? Race only affects how a person looks; culture and religion affect how people behave.
Race is as much a social construct as religion and culture. Perceptions of race correlate with how people look, but they also correlate with how people behave religiously and culturally.
When Islamophobes attack Sikhs but not white Muslims and when anti-immigrant xenophobes attack dark-skinned Americans but not white Latinx immigrants, you don't get to claim either type of bigotry is separate, in actual practice, from racism and how people look.
Also, many fundamentalist Muslims have more in common, culturally and behaviorally, with most fundamentalist Christians than they do with liberal Muslims.
They're intersecting things, sure. They're not identical to each other, though. People have choices regarding religion, for instance, that they lack with regards to race. And of course, there are plenty of instances of people of the same color killing one another over religion or what not. Racism isn't required to explain it. It's just obvious that when racism and other forms of bigotry coincide, the results are worse. That's not really surprising, and certainly doesn't demonstrate that they're all the same thing.
gmalivuk wrote: Mutex wrote:
Basically, race and culture are often correlated, but that doesn't make one part of the other by definition.
One may not be part of the other, but if you're consistently biased against cultural elements that pretty exclusively correspond to one particular race or another, I'm perfectly comfortable calling you racist. You might tell yourself linguistic or cultural lies to justify a dislike of AAVE or dreadlocks, for example, but they're just stories so you don't have to admit you're racist.
Wait, I'm racist because I dislike a specific hairstyle?
Am I also racist for mercilessly mocking the mullet?
I'll cheerfully cop to said things as not being particularly friendly to a given culture, but neither of those things are about race.
Zamfir wrote:C. Let's just call it racism, because why not.
Let's just call it laziness, because why not?
Using words sloppily results in dilution. Look at superlatives. How often, when someone uses the word awesome, do you believe they are actually struck with awe? When everyone's racist, nobody is.