@kazetnagorra saidSmearing millions of Americans as racists is hateful, and it is no wonder that engaging in debates on that premise leads to hateful discussions culminating in a great purge.
I don't think "racist" is a personal attack; it describes a political ideology that is a core tenet of the most powerful political party in the U.S. and as such is very popular in the U.S. at the moment. Therefore it is appropriate to discuss it on a U.S.-centric Debates forum in my opinion. The moderators' views may differ.
@sleepyguy saidIt is not a "smear," these people have embraced racist ideology. They just object to the label, which is not politically correct.
Smearing millions of Americans as racists is hateful, and it is no wonder that engaging in debates on that premise leads to hateful discussions culminating in a great purge.
Again, the problem is that tens of millions of Americans embrace racist ideology, not that they are criticized for their beliefs.
@kazetnagorra saidThere are racists in every country. There are racists in America. There are right wing racists (though by definition they fail the test of being called conservatives), and there are left wing racists. But the vast majority on either side are not, and are sick of being called racist by people such as yourself, who use the accusation as a weapon to silence people. You appear to be addicted to the tactic.
Again, the problem is that tens of millions of Americans embrace racist ideology, not that they are criticized for their beliefs.
@sleepyguy saidIndeed, there are racists everywhere. Here, their political wing is called Alternative for Germany, they have support of about 15% of the population. Needless to say, the renewed rise of fascism in Germany has people here gravely concerned, but they are nevertheless politically marginalized.
There are racists in every country. There are racists in America. There are right wing racists (though by definition they fail the test of being called conservatives), and there are left wing racists. But the vast majority on either side are not, and are sick of being called racist by people such as yourself, who use the accusation as a weapon to silence people. You appear to be addicted to the tactic.
In the U.S., we have seen the Republican Party led by an overt racist, with the administration and campaign stacked with white supremacists. This is a serious threat to U.S. society and democracy, and it is one you cannot wish away by appealing for people to be nice to racists. You should be asking yourself why you stood by and not only let it happen, but actively supported the rise of racists to the top posts in U.S. government, all out of fear of hurting the feelings of racists.
@kazetnagorra saidThat's a bunch of hooey.
In the U.S., we have seen the Republican Party led by an overt racist, with the administration and campaign stacked with white supremacists.
@sleepyguy saidIf you cannot condemn the overt racism of Donald Trump and the Republican Party, your condemnation of racism comes across as rather insincere and is, in effect, an ardent defence thereof.
That's a bunch of hooey.
@kazetnagorra saidWhy don't you tell me specifically what I am to condemn? In-artful tweeting?
If you cannot condemn the overt racism of Donald Trump and the Republican Party, your condemnation of racism comes across as rather insincere and is, in effect, an ardent defence thereof.
What policy is racist? Controlling immigration? Criminal justice reform? Opportunity zones? Job creation? Opposition to riots and murder in the streets?
@sleepyguy saidWhy don't you tell me specifically what I am to condemn?
Why don't you tell me specifically what I am to condemn? In-artful tweeting?
What policy is racist? Controlling immigration? Criminal justice reform? Opportunity zones? Job creation? Opposition to riots and murder in the streets?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump
Everything in this article, the Republican Party for condoning and/or supporting it, and their voters for giving it a platform.
We can debate whether or not Donald Trump is a committed white supremacist or merely a racist, but we cannot have a serious debate among informed adults about whether or not he is a racist. Only under a ludicrously narrow definition - perhaps a definition that you would like to see applied to pretend the problem is not as severe as it actually is - would he not be.
@Sleepyguy
Really? 'there were good people on Both Sides" Trump statement after Charleston. As that white nationalist creep killed a protester by driving over them with his SUV.
Yep, REAL GOOD PEOPLE those white nationalists. Lets see ALL of them go to Trump rallies with no PPE and start sneezing at themselves and Trump.
THAT I would pay to see.
08 Jul 20
@kazetnagorra saidOh yay a wiki link. Went to a lot of trouble there, eh?
Why don't you tell me specifically what I am to condemn?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump
Everything in this article, the Republican Party for condoning and/or supporting it, and their voters for giving it a platform.
We can debate whether or not Donald Trump is a committed white supremacist or merely a racist, but we cannot have ...[text shortened]... uld like to see applied to pretend the problem is not as severe as it actually is - would he not be.
Let's see, how to address this? Imagine you were American and had a choice between Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich in a presidential election, and, hoping to foster change to best comport with your own ideology, you rolled the dice on Turd Sandwich and she won. Would it then be reasonable for me to conclude that by voting for her you had condoned every atrocity she had supposedly committed as listed in some right-leaning wiki article? Perhaps I could say:
"If you cannot condemn the overt criminality/deceit/perfidy of Turd Sandwich and the Turd Sandwich Party (handy wiki link provided), then your condemnation of criminality/deceit/perfidy comes across as rather insincere and is, in effect, an ardent defence thereof."
That doesn't sound reasonable to me. I'd think it much fairer, decent, respectful, and more conducive to having a grown up conversation to adopt the premise that despite our different approaches we both probably want a society arranged to effect the best outcome for the greatest number of citizens, to be as fair as possible in doing so, with the least possible amount of corruption and deceit in the government, and certainly for the government to be blind to any person's race in all matters. In other words, I think it would be better to assume, even if only for the sake of debate, that you are a decent person, and to treat you as such. Hopefully you would reciprocate and with luck we could be informed by one another's perspective.
But that's not how things generally roll in the Debates forum, is it?
@sleepyguy saidI have never voted for a candidate I fully agreed with, and I don't expect anyone else to do so either. Nevertheless, some viewpoints would be considered deal-breakers for me even if I agreed with a lot of other points. One of those viewpoints is racism. Clearly you have a different opinion in this regard, and consider other viewpoints as more important. That is certainly your prerogative, but it doesn't match your strong condemnation of racism that you also claim in this thread. Which is your viewpoint: that you strongly condemn racism, and regret not voting for the non-racist candidate in 2016, or that you consider racism as a negative, but not strong enough a negative to vote against a candidate and party strongly supporting it?
Oh yay a wiki link. Went to a lot of trouble there, eh?
Let's see, how to address this? Imagine you were American and had a choice between Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich in a presidential election, and, hoping to foster change to best comport with your own ideology, you rolled the dice on Turd Sandwich and she won. Would it then be reasonable for me to conclude that by v ...[text shortened]... one another's perspective.
But that's not how things generally roll in the Debates forum, is it?
@kazetnagorra saidNice analysis.
I have never voted for a candidate I fully agreed with, and I don't expect anyone else to do so either. Nevertheless, some viewpoints would be considered deal-breakers for me even if I agreed with a lot of other points. One of those viewpoints is racism. Clearly you have a different opinion in this regard, and consider other viewpoints as more important. That is certainl ...[text shortened]... tive, but not strong enough a negative to vote against a candidate and party strongly supporting it?
@sleepyguy saidVery well written, it hit the nail right on the head.
There are racists in every country. There are racists in America. There are right wing racists (though by definition they fail the test of being called conservatives), and there are left wing racists. But the vast majority on either side are not, and are sick of being called racist by people such as yourself, who use the accusation as a weapon to silence people. You appear to be addicted to the tactic.
Calling one a racist is a weapon to silence people.
And man, do leftists ever love to play the race card.
Bullying, to be sure.
@kazetnagorra saidThis is bullying to be sure.
If you cannot condemn the overt racism of Donald Trump and the Republican Party, your condemnation of racism comes across as rather insincere and is, in effect, an ardent defence thereof.
You are intimidating everyone that supports the current admin into thinking
that if they talk positively about anything the admin does, they will be thought of as a racist.
Why don't you lay off with the BS calls of racism. It's inflaming and you know it.