This topic is locked from further discussion.
When I was in high school back in 2010-2011, I remember believing Trump was racist after reading online about many of his racist controversies. And that was years before he ran for president.
@waahahah: No you literally said racial discrimination can be justified. I know what you said.
No, I said discriminating based on empirical data isn't the same as discriminating based on prejudice and bigotry. Its a different justification or reasoning. What do you mean by "justified" because I see now you have no desire to speak with precision.
I mean maybe if your religious the "scientific" method shouldn't be used for judging individuals. But if you live in a secular community... why shouldn't you use data driven selection?
Right but everything you said is fine... but it still doesn't mean seeing someone that is pro Mexico and has mexican parents being the reason why he might be potentially ruling unfairly... is racist.
I mean... your bias is coloring him as racist. Which is basic bigotry. Your no different than what you claim trump is. But its stupid because if any one can be upset or biased of someone wanting to build a wall... its someone that is pro-mexico… and making that observation isn't in any way racist.
Trump being a racist is a suspicion I hold after taking his character, statements, and past actions into account and viewing them as a collective. Is it conclusive proof? No, but neither is yours in claiming he's not. And as much as you keep saying I'm the racist for projecting prejudices you mistakenly assume I hold onto his intentions, I can easily claim you are by your constant apologies of his actions, statements, and character, that when taken together do not give him much benefit of the doubt, if any.
Aside, my worldview will never be "crushed", because I'm always open minded to new evidence. I love to embrace new worldviews but I need to be convinced, which you've failed to do.
Right but everything you said is fine... but it still doesn't mean seeing someone that is pro Mexico and has mexican parents being the reason why he might be potentially ruling unfairly... is racist.
I mean... your bias is coloring him as racist. Which is basic bigotry. Your no different than what you claim trump is. But its stupid because if any one can be upset or biased of someone wanting to build a wall... its someone that is pro-mexico… and making that observation isn't in any way racist.
My bias doesn't color him a racist. It's a suspicion I hold after viewing his character, his statements, and his past actions into account. Is it conclusive proof? No, but neither is yours in claiming he's not. And as much as you keep saying I'm the racist for projecting prejudices you mistakenly assume I hold onto his intentions, I can easily claim you are by your constant apologies of his actions, statements, and character, that when taken together do not give him much benefit of the doubt, if any.
Aside, my worldview will never be "crushed", because I'm always open minded to new evidence. I've just need to be convinced, which you've failed to do.
Of course your bias colors him a racist. Because of your "suspicion" your much more likely to interpret acts as racist, because you presume motive. You haven't once proved motive. You presume trump cares about the judge's race like Tapper presumes it. He only cares about it because of the context of the judge's ruling and his desire to build a wall, an no evidence supports anything else.
I mean, I posted a bunch of personal acts that helped a wide range of minorities. You clearly don't care about contradicting evidence. The only thing you should be suspicious of is he's an offensive asshole and will use race as an insult. But the only strong evidence is 30 years old and tied to discriminatory business practices that may have had actual monetary implications for doing so.. and more recently the conversation he had where there was a clear disconnect between speakers...
So here's the real question. Are you only suggesting he's someone that's willing to racially discriminate? Because he clearly is. However are you suggesting there is any evidence he holds any particularly negative view of any race that is baseless and bigoted? Because there is 0 evidence of that. You've provided 0 evidence of that. You've never clarified if you felt that way, you just fought over semantics about "racist" so you can label him such.
And back to my original point. What do you mean by racism? Are you only suggesting that he racially discriminates? Than why are you calling him a racist without clarifying that, it doesn't matter if you think you can use racism that way. Racism means or (and ALSO) a belief about particular races. People read and here your words without the context of your thoughts. Are you intentionally being ambiguous or accidently?
Right but everything you said is fine... but it still doesn't mean seeing someone that is pro Mexico and has mexican parents being the reason why he might be potentially ruling unfairly... is racist.
I mean... your bias is coloring him as racist. Which is basic bigotry. Your no different than what you claim trump is. But its stupid because if any one can be upset or biased of someone wanting to build a wall... its someone that is pro-mexico… and making that observation isn't in any way racist.
My bias doesn't color him a racist. It's a suspicion I hold after viewing his character, his statements, and his past actions into account. Is it conclusive proof? No, but neither is yours in claiming he's not. And as much as you keep saying I'm the racist for projecting prejudices you mistakenly assume I hold onto his intentions, I can easily claim you are by your constant apologies of his actions, statements, and character, that when taken together do not give him much benefit of the doubt, if any.
Aside, my worldview will never be "crushed", because I'm always open minded to new evidence. I've just need to be convinced, which you've failed to do.
Of course your bias colors him a racist. Because of your "suspicion" your much more likely to interpret acts as racist, because you presume motive. You haven't once proved motive. You presume trump cares about the judge's race like Tapper presumes it. He only cares about it because of the context of the judge's ruling and his desire to build a wall, an no evidence supports anything else.
I mean, I posted a bunch of personal acts that helped a wide range of minorities. You clearly don't care about contradicting evidence. The only thing you should be suspicious of is he's an offensive asshole and will use race as an insult. But the only strong evidence is 30 years old and tied to discriminatory business practices that may have had actual monetary implications for doing so.. and more recently the conversation he had where there was a clear disconnect between speakers...
So here's the real question. Are you only suggesting he's someone that's willing to racially discriminate? Because he clearly is. However are you suggesting there is any evidence he holds any particularly negative view of any race that is baseless and bigoted? Because there is 0 evidence of that. You've provided 0 evidence of that. You've never clarified if you felt that way, you just fought over semantics about "racist" so you can label him such.
And back to my original point. What do you mean by racism? Are you only suggesting that he racially discriminates? Than why are you calling him a racist without clarifying that, it doesn't matter if you think you can use racism that way. Racism means or (and ALSO) a belief about particular races. People read and here your words without the context of your thoughts. Are you intentionally being ambiguous or accidently?
Spot on here Was.
This thread is crazy in the regard that the left and especially the far-left has watered down the term racist, so much that it now go from someone who is a hardcore racist, who literally believes in racial supremacy, to a store selling a cake, or to someone even mentioning a certain word without care for the actual context. So as to Trump is he a racist depends on what you mean, is he a hardcore white supremacy racist, no of course not he has throughout his life multiple cases of no bias shown towards any race
But does that mean that his dad didn´t have a bias against certain people moving into his buildings, no, does it mean that Trump does not have some of these bad habits or he grew up in a period of America´s history where racism ran rampant, no of course not? But is Trump a racist, He certainly isn't if you look at the normal definition of Racist, but if you look at the lefts watered down clueless definition then yes he is. But using that far-lefts term of racist is pointless.
@waahahah: No you literally said racial discrimination can be justified. I know what you said.
No, I said discriminating based on empirical data isn't the same as discriminating based on prejudice and bigotry. Its a different justification or reasoning. What do you mean by "justified" because I see now you have no desire to speak with precision.
I mean maybe if your religious the "scientific" method shouldn't be used for judging individuals. But if you live in a secular community... why shouldn't you use data driven selection?
Let me phrase it this way then: If you were a landlord and had 4 black applicants and 4 white applicants to live in your 1 apartment unit you had left, you'd automatically discard the black applicants because of this "empirical data"? Even if they had zero criminal history?
@waahahah: No you literally said racial discrimination can be justified. I know what you said.
No, I said discriminating based on empirical data isn't the same as discriminating based on prejudice and bigotry. Its a different justification or reasoning. What do you mean by "justified" because I see now you have no desire to speak with precision.
I mean maybe if your religious the "scientific" method shouldn't be used for judging individuals. But if you live in a secular community... why shouldn't you use data driven selection?
Let me phrase it this way then: If you were a landlord and had 4 black applicants and 4 white applicants to live in your 1 apartment unit you had left, you'd automatically discard the black applicants because of this "empirical data"? Even if they had zero criminal history?
Well that's a stupid question which clearly shows you don't understand how statistics work. I mean even in your question its essentially stating there is 0 empirical data that is weighted towards race "zero criminal history". How do I know that? All I have is some statistics and 8 sheets of paper. It doesn't even match reality, people don't just wake up and think.. well **** these black people.
Hypothetically lets say I'm willing to discriminate because of statistics.
If your using data.. your going to discriminate against applicants that have a low chance of meeting standards or have had common issues. You won't know before hand until you put some effort in. If there is a fairly strong predictor based on race... why shouldn't you just discard them? I know its not very empathetic but, what good business sense is it if you have a strong predictor of an applications likliness to fail.. and not use it. At that point your just leaving the apartment vacant burning money to do extra work just to give black people special consideration.
I mentioned this on page 1. Real world example of using correlative statistics. Obama wanted to make employing more equal so he made mandate that you couldn't use background checks in the hiring process for a federal job. They stopped hiring black people. Since they weren't allowed to check they just used the statistical discrepancy to filter applicants (more blacks were felons) that caused the disproportionate (failed background checks) hiring to begin with.
@waahahah: So here's the real question. Are you only suggesting he's someone that's willing to racially discriminate? Because he clearly is. However are you suggesting there is any evidence he holds any particularly negative view of any race that is baseless and bigoted? Because there is 0 evidence of that. You've provided 0 evidence of that. You've never clarified if you felt that way, you just fought over semantics about "racist" so you can label him such.
There is a tremendous amount of evidence he holds bigoted views, which has already been mentioned numerous times in this thread so I won't repeat it. He has discriminated, and he's a bigot. He has discriminated because he's a bigot. Don't mistake evidence for proof. There is an abundance of the former even if it leads to no ironclad conclusions.
And back to my original point. What do you mean by racism? Are you only suggesting that he racially discriminates? Than why are you calling him a racist without clarifying that, it doesn't matter if you think you can use racism that way. Racism means or (and ALSO) a belief about particular races. People read and here your words without the context of your thoughts. Are you intentionally being ambiguous or accidently?
My first post goes over how I feel and in what way I believe Trump to be a racist. I view racism when speaking on Trump as the collective of his actions whose impetus has been the driven by his bigotry, and I make no distinction between his acts of discrimination, what he says, and how he acts. I look at it as one in the same with his prejudices.
I mean, I posted a bunch of personal acts that helped a wide range of minorities. You clearly don't care about contradicting evidence.
If you're going to argue against the claims of Trump being a racist by suggesting that he did what he did for financial or statistical reasoning predicated upon factors that only correlate to race and is in no way indicative of direct prejudices held against it, then don't expect me and others to take those examples you cited as evidence he's not a racist as I can easily attribute them to ulterior motives as well (such as good PR). You can argue that there's evidence pointing in both directions, but one thing I have in favor of my position (and that everyone else does arguing against yours) that you do not is his character.
Which is a paramount consideration in any discussion about whether someone is a bigot, because the measure of one's character holds bearing on their motives driven by beliefs dictated by it. You simply cannot view evidence absent that context in trying to determine whether someone is a racist. Are you going to argue to me that Trump is a decent person? What has you giving him the benefit of the doubt? His propensity to lie to such a ridiculous degree? To consistently attack people like a preschooler? To shaft his workers? To scam people with Trump University? To sexually assault women? This debate wouldn't even be happening if Trump were a good guy, but he's not. He's quite possibly one of the most morally bankrupt people I've ever laid eyes on outside of prison, and more than likely he'd be in it many time over if he hadn't rose from money, connections, and privilege.
I mean, the guy makes it a point to be a scumbag and objectionable, he prides himself on it at the expense of others, and encourages it in them as well. Continue to ignore that or brush it to the side. It's disingenuous. People who are racist have low character, they have no integrity, and Trump easily meets those requirements. Taking his past and everything he does into account in that light, you're being incredibly intellectually dishonest, naive and gullible by continuing to stand by his side as you are.
There is a tremendous amount of evidence he holds bigoted views, which has already been mentioned numerous times in this thread so I won't repeat it. He has discriminated, and he's a bigot. He has discriminated because he's a bigot. Don't mistake evidence for proof. There is an abundance of the former even if it leads to no ironclad conclusions.
Bigoted isn't the same thing a racist though... are you moving the bar. And I don't see the evidence of his bigotry's. I see evidence he has poor word choice 90% of the time or just poor judgment.
My first post goes over how I feel and in what way I believe Trump to be a racist. I view racism when speaking on Trump as the collective of his actions whose impetus has been the driven by his bigotry, and I make no distinction between his acts of discrimination, what he says, and how he acts. I look at it as one in the same with his prejudices.
Your first post presumes motive. IE bigoted.
The fact is if you look up objective standards, the countries he talked about are shitholes and Mexico objectively aren't sending us their best...Places like Norway the have high standards of living and are culturally better more often than Americans, people that come from the Scandinavian countries do extremely well in America.
the border is being heavily exploited by human trafficker's and the cartel... and you want to put that in the same pattern as Trump's dad got a lawsuit for discrimination then Trump got a similar law suite for discrimination... while there is evidence to suggest this wasn't a ubiquitous policy?
There is nothing to suggest he holds "racist" views. Apart from the New York discrimination... the only evidence his anti Mexican and comments on countries would suggest he's not careful about caring about race. When being slapped in the face with reality he makes plain observations. Like I mentioned previously do we have a cartel/migrant problem on our north border? Are there caravan's of white people?
So he has a bunch of anti - illegal alien - rhetoric.. he helped Mexico's labor parties... and your still presuming that the rhetoric is because of prejudice… when its only brown people that are creating the problem. You can only refer to brown people when talking about the people running across the border.
If you're going to argue against the claims of Trump being a racist by suggesting that he did what he did for financial or statistical reasoning predicated upon factors that only correlate to race and is in no way indicative of direct prejudices held against it, then don't expect me and others to take those examples you cited as evidence he's not a racist as I can easily attribute them to ulterior motives as well (such as good PR). You can argue that there's evidence pointing in both directions, but one thing I have in favor of my position (and that everyone else does arguing against yours) that you do not is his character.
So your saying I don't care about evidence to suggest he's not a racist, I'm going to right all of that off as ulterior motives and continue to interpret everything as racist. Thanks for clarifying how much of a bigot you are.
The only evidence there is, trump generally isn't worried about race or race relations or how other people will interpret what he says. The evidence is far stronger he is more liberal in his day to day and just doesn't give a **** about offending people.
@zaryia@Tigerman950@MirkoS77
you guys really NEEED this to be true.
Good thing reality exists and it's on video and tweet, and it IS true. Same goes for the fact discrimination is part of Racism.
If you're going to argue against the claims of Trump being a racist by suggesting that he did what he did for financial or statistical reasoning predicated upon factors that only correlate to race and is in no way indicative of direct prejudices held against it, then don't expect me and others to take those examples you cited as evidence he's not a racist as I can easily attribute them to ulterior motives as well (such as good PR). You can argue that there's evidence pointing in both directions, but one thing I have in favor of my position (and that everyone else does arguing against yours) that you do not is his character.
So your saying I don't care about evidence to suggest he's not a racist,
This doesn't change the fact he has done and said racist things in the past.
@zaryia@Tigerman950@MirkoS77
you guys really NEEED this to be true.
Good thing reality exists and it's on video, and it IS true.
Same goes for the fact discrimination is part of Racism.
If you're going to argue against the claims of Trump being a racist by suggesting that he did what he did for financial or statistical reasoning predicated upon factors that only correlate to race and is in no way indicative of direct prejudices held against it, then don't expect me and others to take those examples you cited as evidence he's not a racist as I can easily attribute them to ulterior motives as well (such as good PR). You can argue that there's evidence pointing in both directions, but one thing I have in favor of my position (and that everyone else does arguing against yours) that you do not is his character.
So your saying I don't care about evidence to suggest he's not a racist,
This doesn't change the fact he has done and said racist things in the past.
So what? Your basically saying once a racist always a racist. And what do you mean by racist? Its your interpretation of what he meant. What has he said that is overtly racist? The judge statements aren't, its plain observation that a pro Mexican judge is ruling unfairly and trump thinks its because he wants to build a wall.. and its a pro Mexican judge. Just having an observation about "race" isn't racist.
You have also not clarified what you mean. Just fought over semantics to label him such. There is literally no measuring goal. So he said racist comments? To what extent is that a core part of Trump's beliefs or is it just him being an asshole?
Your as bigoted as MirkoS77.
@Jacanuk said:far-left has watered down the term racist
He certainly isn't if you look at the normal definition of Racist
1. I'm literally just quoting the normal definition from Cambridge, Google, and Merriam-Webster's dictionary. Seems normal to me.
It's your job to show me they (and the English language) are wrong, and that clear cut racial determination is not racist (LMAO!)
You're reaching, and doing it poorly.
2. Describe the NY Apartments case or show all of his Judge Curiel comments to anyone in America. I'm sure they will say those 2 instances are racist (because they objectively are). You're lying so badly atm.
@Jacanuk said:far-left has watered down the term racist
He certainly isn't if you look at the normal definition of Racist
1. I'm literally just quoting Cambridge and Merriam-Webster's dictionary.
You're reaching.
2. Describe the Black Tennants or show all of his Curiel Comments to anyone in America. I'm sure they will say those 2 instances are Racist (because they objectively are).
Your quote ignored the giant blurb that its basically clarifies that its only a statement how words are used. Not whether or not they are correctly used or whether or not they can create ambiguity or implications.
If the people used them wrongly its going to be in the dictionary. Your basically stating you know about the potential implications but don't care.
Majority =/= right either. The fact that the term racist has been a moving goal post just means more and more people can get categorized as such.
Your asserting its a fact after ignoring the entire conversation trump had with Tapper. What objective standard are you using? Stupid?
I watched the entire interview and read all of his Curiel tweets.
What he said about this Judge was racist. Just like his Apartment ordeal was racist. No away around this. He screwed up, stick with reality and say it was just a gaff and he is no longer racist or no longer holds racist views. There are better ways to defend Trump on this than by trying to alter reality.
You're straight up lying.
@Jacanuk said:far-left has watered down the term racist
He certainly isn't if you look at the normal definition of Racist
1. I'm literally just quoting Cambridge and Merriam-Webster's dictionary.
You're reaching.
2. Describe the Black Tennants or show all of his Curiel Comments to anyone in America. I'm sure they will say those 2 instances are Racist (because they objectively are).
Your quote ignored the giant blurb that its basically clarifies that its only a statement how words are used. Not whether or not they are correctly used or whether or not they can create ambiguity or implications.
If the left used them wrongly its going to be in the dictionary.
Majority =/= right either. The fact that the term racist has been a moving goal post just means more and more people can get categorized as such.
I'm not moving any goal posts, that blurb in no way notes my usage may be incorrect as it pertains to Trump's action's and is just a generic side note. Trump's specific actions 100% apply to one of the major definitions from multiple dictionaries. You're literally telling me words no longer matter and you're starting to sound like Sarah Sanders.
Racism and Donald Trump: a common thread throughout his career and life
In 1973, Richard Nixon’s Department of Justice sued the Trump family business for refusing to rent or negotiate rentals “because of race and color”.
It also charged that the company had required prohibitively stringent rental terms and conditions to black applicants and had lied about unit availability to keep black residents out. A then 26-year-old Donald Trump was the president of the company at the time.
Three Trump doormen also told the DoJ they had been instructed to deflect African Americans who came to Trump buildings to apply for apartments. The suit was later settled “without an admission of guilt”, as Trump is keen on reminding.
You are implying pure racial discrimination is not racist. Citation? Anything to back this up? It's a rather wild claim.
P.S. I've made it clear many times in this thread I'm not sure if he is racist anymore. But I do think he was racist in the past and has factually said racist things as the President which I think was mostly for votes (Many hate groups are conservative). I've made these distinctions and nuances clear. But to say these 2 examples are not racist flies in the face of reality. So unless you have an Infinity Gauntlet....
I'm not moving any goal posts, that blurb in no way notes my usage may be incorrect as it pertains to Trump's action's and is just a generic side note. Trump's specific actions 100% apply to one of the definitions from multiple dictionaries.
Racism and Donald Trump: a common thread throughout his career and life
In 1973, Richard Nixon’s Department of Justice sued the Trump family business for refusing to rent or negotiate rentals “because of race and color”.
It also charged that the company had required prohibitively stringent rental terms and conditions to black applicants and had lied about unit availability to keep black residents out. A then 26-year-old Donald Trump was the president of the company at the time.
Three Trump doormen also told the DoJ they had been instructed to deflect African Americans who came to Trump buildings to apply for apartments. The suit was later settled “without an admission of guilt”, as Trump is keen on reminding.
You are implying racial discrimination is not racist. Citation? Anything to back this up? It's a rather wild claim.
P.S. I've made it clear many times in this thread I'm not sure if he is racist anymore. But I do think he was racist in the past and has factually said racist things as the President which I think was mostly for votes (Many hate groups are conservative). I've made these distinctions and nuances clear. But to say these 2 examples are not racist flies in the face of reality. So unless you have an Infinity Gauntlet....
So you don't care about nuance nor do you care about implication. You need to label trump a racist.
Got it. You proved my point.
Your asserting its a fact after ignoring the entire conversation trump had with Tapper. What objective standard are you using? Stupid?
I watched the entire interview and read all of his Curiel tweets.
What he said about this Judge was racist. Just like his Apartment ordeal was racist. No away around this. He screwed up, stick with reality and say it was just a gaff and he is no longer racist or no longer holds racist views. There are better ways to defend Trump on this than by trying to alter reality.
You're straight up lying.
How am I lying? Its your interpretation vs mine. Your suggesting he meant race and there is no indication trump meant race or cared about the judge's race outside of his desire to build a wall. There is NO reason to suspect trump's judgement was based on race alone or even that was the inherent problem. It was a possible conflict of interested between a pro Mexican judge and wanting to build a wall?
Any one that is stupid will call this racism because they aren't able to make understand if there is ever a GOOD time to point at someone's background its when their background conflicts with your current goals.
So you don't care about nuance nor do you care about implication. You need to label trump a racist.
Got it. You proved my point.
What. I said I'm not sure if he is 100% racist anymore (it could just be purely for the racist right votes), but I do think he was in the past due to clearly racist actions and statements. In particular the Apartment issue, which was clearly racist and not debatable. The Curiel comments also were objectively racist.
Your asserting its a fact after ignoring the entire conversation trump had with Tapper. What objective standard are you using? Stupid?
I watched the entire interview and read all of his Curiel tweets.
What he said about this Judge was racist. Just like his Apartment ordeal was racist. No away around this. He screwed up, stick with reality and say it was just a gaff and he is no longer racist or no longer holds racist views. There are better ways to defend Trump on this than by trying to alter reality.
You're straight up lying.
How am I lying? Its your interpretation vs mine. Your suggesting he meant race and there is no indication trump meant race or cared about the judge's race outside of his desire to build a wall.
Don't lie.
On June 2, 2016, Trump told the Wall Street Journalthat Curiel had "an absolute conflict" in presiding over the litigation given that he is "of Mexican heritage" and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association.
Tapper: "What I'm saying is, if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job..."
Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it!
The Apartment Case and Curiel comments are factually 2 examples of racist statements or actions. NO way to alter this. Those are just the facts.
That's not what you should be debating to help your case. You should be debating if one very long ago clear cut racist action and a few clear cut racist statements makes someone a racist. You're better off staying on that subjective topic rather than trying to alter facts. You should be arguing it was a very long time ago, and all his recent comments are purely for votes towards the Racist Right and that he isn't actually a racist now.
Instead we're debating facts, yay.
So you don't care about nuance nor do you care about implication. You need to label trump a racist.
Got it. You proved my point.
What. I said I'm not sure if he is racist anymore, but I do think he was in the past due to clearly racist actions and statements. In particular the Apartment issue, which was clearly racist.
You keep citing the dictionary saying "see see see it falls under we can use this term", THE DICTIONARY LITERALLY STATES TRYING TO USE SAID DICTIONARY THE WAY YOU USED IT IS WRONG. All the dictionary is a list of how people have used the term. Its not a canonical "right way" to use terms.. or how to use them, or what they might mean in usage.
Also many hate groups are hateful. It has nothing to do with politics. "right wing" is generally associated with racial violence even though the democratic party created the KKK... its amazing how people can basically throw "right wing" over everything.. same with "racist" and "alt-right" and "hate groups"...
You've clearly drank the leftist koolaid. Also I don't consider Christian Extremists any more right wring than Islamic extremist left wing. Its ridiculously malicious to try to slander political parties this way.
@Jacanuk said:far-left has watered down the term racist
He certainly isn't if you look at the normal definition of Racist
1. I'm literally just quoting the normal definition from Cambridge, Google, and Merriam-Webster's dictionary. Seems normal to me.
It's your job to show me they (and the English language) are wrong, and that clear cut racial determination is not racist (LMAO!)
You're reaching, and doing it poorly.
2. Describe the NY Apartments case or show all of his Judge Curiel comments to anyone in America. I'm sure they will say those 2 instances are racist (because they objectively are). You're lying so badly atm.
You are not making any sense
But let´s take the normal standard definition
"Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
Do you believe that Trump´s Dad wanted to exclude certain ethnicities for no other reason that they felt their own race was superior? or do you think they looked at certain black neighbourhoods and notice the crime and behaviour of some and then wrongfully decided everyone was like that?
Because if you are thinking the second which is correct, then that is not being a racist in the normal definition.
So you don't care about nuance nor do you care about implication. You need to label trump a racist.
Got it. You proved my point.
What. I said I'm not sure if he is racist anymore, but I do think he was in the past due to clearly racist actions and statements. In particular the Apartment issue, which was clearly racist.
THE DICTIONARY LITERALLY STATES TRYING TO USE SAID DICTIONARY THE WAY YOU USED IT IS WRONG.
I'm not using it to persuade or mollify you, I'm using it to show the facts. You're views are deeply contrarian and farsical, so I employed the use of multiple dictionaries. I'm allowed to call pure and clear cut racial discrimination as racist.
Get a grip, you lost this specific debate.
Racism and Donald Trump: a common thread throughout his career and life
In 1973, Richard Nixon’s Department of Justice sued the Trump family business for refusing to rent or negotiate rentals “because of race and color”.
It also charged that the company had required prohibitively stringent rental terms and conditions to black applicants and had lied about unit availability to keep black residents out. A then 26-year-old Donald Trump was the president of the company at the time.
Three Trump doormen also told the DoJ they had been instructed to deflect African Americans who came to Trump buildings to apply for apartments. The suit was later settled “without an admission of guilt”, as Trump is keen on reminding.
I'm going to use the word racism to describe the above, as per the English language.
You should just say it was a long time ago and he's no longer racist like someone who isn't part of Stormfront would, instead of going full clown and saying it is normal behavior (It's not).
Also many hate groups are hateful. It has nothing to do with politics. "right wing" is generally associated with racial violence even though the democratic party created the KKK... its amazing how people can basically throw "right wing" over everything.. same with "racist" and "alt-right" and "hate groups"...
That's because those southern democrats switched parties throughout the 1900's.
As such, most hate groups against minorities are in white conservative districts.
You are not making any sense
But let´s take the normal standard definition
"Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
Do you believe that Trump´s wanted to exclude certain ethnicities for no other reason that they felt their own race was superior?
Yes, Trump used racial prejudice, discrimination, and antagonism (all of which are also part of many definitions of racism such as Cambridge and Merrian), because he thought the white tenants were better to have.
"I thought the black couple would be judged acceptable as tenants based on [employment and weekly salary]. However, [redacted] just told me they're blacks and and that's that. I believe that [redacted] and others working at the rental office used a code on the top of the front page of the application to distinguish blacks from whites."
Trump treated black employees at his casinos differently from whites, according to multiple sources. A former hotel executive said Trump criticized a black accountant: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks.”
This is racism.
You are not making any sense
But let´s take the normal standard definition
"Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
Do you believe that Trump´s Dad wanted to exclude certain ethnicities for no other reason that they felt their own race was superior? or do you think they looked at certain black neighbourhoods and notice the crime and behaviour of some and then wrongfully decided everyone was like that?
Because if you are thinking the second which is correct, then that is not being a racist in the normal definition.
I don't know what his fathers intent was or trump's. There is no indication what TYPE of racism is being exercised.
And again your reading into it. Lets say there are a bunch of black neighborhoods that have disproportionally higher crime rates, worse behavior... Its not about assuming all black people are like that... its whether or not you want to ignore an indicator that would show higher risk with a particular group of people or just discarding them as a hole for the safer bet.
Your assuming the discrimination is happening because they view individuals as a representation of the group which. So there are 3 different motivations for the same discriminatory behavior.
1 is a scientifically a valid usage of attempting to use some statistics to minimize issues. The other 2 not so much. But most people don't use the other 2 as much. They intuitively use 1 based on public perception and occasionally slip into 2. Even insurance companies will charge males more because they, as a group, cost more.
Now consider the statements on the auto insurance company where they charge blacks 50% more on average than white/Asians... they don't use race in their calculation. But if they had used race they might be able to treat the ethnic group a bit more like "men" and disperse the cost over the group which might make it easier for any individual to get insurance. I don't know the particulars about insurance I'm just posting a thought.
And what about Affirmative action which racially discriminates. I've brought it up multiple times and its just ignored and dismissed. Do we call that racist because it discriminates racially?
We'll never be able to have conversations about stuff like this because of Zaryia's and MirkoS77 view on racist... because all of what I just pointed out can be considered "racist". And you can't just magically untie racism with the original meaning of racism... and it becomes taboo. It tends to have STRONG implications of someone's motivation when talking about racially discriminating. It doesn't seem to matter to them, can we label it racist? Yes technically.. good enough that all that matters and there shouldn't EVER be a reason to do it...
You are not making any sense
But let´s take the normal standard definition
"Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
Do you believe that Trump´s Dad wanted to exclude certain ethnicities for no other reason that they felt their own race was superior? or do you think they looked at certain black neighbourhoods and notice the crime and behaviour of some and then wrongfully decided everyone was like that?
Because if you are thinking the second which is correct, then that is not being a racist in the normal definition.
And again your reading into it. Lets say there are a bunch of black neighborhoods that have disproportionally higher crime rates, worse behavior... Its not about assuming all black people are like that... its whether or not you want to ignore an indicator that would show higher risk with a particular group of people or just discarding them as a hole for the safer bet.
Uh huh,
"I thought the black couple would be judged acceptable as tenants based on [employment and weekly salary]. However, [redacted] just told me they're blacks and and that's that. I believe that [redacted] and others working at the rental office used a code on the top of the front page of the application to distinguish blacks from whites."
I'm not using it to persuade or mollify you, I'm using it to show the facts. You're views are deeply contrarian and farsical, so I employed the use of multiple dictionaries. I'm allowed to call pure and clear cut racial discrimination as racist.
Get a grip, you lost this specific debate.
Racism and Donald Trump: a common thread throughout his career and life
In 1973, Richard Nixon’s Department of Justice sued the Trump family business for refusing to rent or negotiate rentals “because of race and color”.
It also charged that the company had required prohibitively stringent rental terms and conditions to black applicants and had lied about unit availability to keep black residents out. A then 26-year-old Donald Trump was the president of the company at the time.
Three Trump doormen also told the DoJ they had been instructed to deflect African Americans who came to Trump buildings to apply for apartments. The suit was later settled “without an admission of guilt”, as Trump is keen on reminding.
I'm going to use the word racism to describe the above, as per the English language.
You should just say it was a long time ago and he's no longer racist like someone who isn't part of Stormfront would, instead of going full clown and saying it is normal behavior (It's not).
No, you can use the term "technically". But you never really stated what you mean specifically. At this point I can only take that as you don't care about what it ALSO means and implies about a person. IE nuance is not important to you.
Nothing about what said about trump has any understanding of trump's motivations or about his direct involvement in those decisions. Some of those applicants were recommend OTHER trump buildings that had larger black populations.
You are not making any sense
But let´s take the normal standard definition
"Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
Do you believe that Trump´s Dad wanted to exclude certain ethnicities for no other reason that they felt their own race was superior? or do you think they looked at certain black neighbourhoods and notice the crime and behaviour of some and then wrongfully decided everyone was like that?
Because if you are thinking the second which is correct, then that is not being a racist in the normal definition.
And again your reading into it. Lets say there are a bunch of black neighborhoods that have disproportionally higher crime rates, worse behavior... Its not about assuming all black people are like that... its whether or not you want to ignore an indicator that would show higher risk with a particular group of people or just discarding them as a hole for the safer bet.
Uh huh,
"I thought the black couple would be judged acceptable as tenants based on [employment and weekly salary]. However, [redacted] just told me they're blacks and and that's that. I believe that [redacted] and others working at the rental office used a code on the top of the front page of the application to distinguish blacks from whites."
That wasn't a response to the trump case idiot. It was his thoughts on the motivations of the people. And even then your quote doesn't answer the question I put forth.
… and of course cherry picking
Although some of the allegations were damning, the majority of those interviewed in the investigation said they were unaware of discrimination, according to Politico.
So they only told some people to discriminate?
Instead of arguing about what racism is I figure pictures are worth a thousand words.
On the other hand if you want words, here's the word of a textbook example of a republican.
I just found an entire wikipedia page dedicated to this topic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump
You are not making any sense
But let´s take the normal standard definition
"Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
Do you believe that Trump´s Dad wanted to exclude certain ethnicities for no other reason that they felt their own race was superior? or do you think they looked at certain black neighbourhoods and notice the crime and behaviour of some and then wrongfully decided everyone was like that?
Because if you are thinking the second which is correct, then that is not being a racist in the normal definition.
I don't know what his fathers intent was or trump's. There is no indication what TYPE of racism is being exercised.
And again your reading into it. Lets say there are a bunch of black neighborhoods that have disproportionally higher crime rates, worse behavior... Its not about assuming all black people are like that... its whether or not you want to ignore an indicator that would show higher risk with a particular group of people or just discarding them as a hole for the safer bet.
Your assuming the discrimination is happening because they view individuals as a representation of the group which. So there are 3 different motivations for the same discriminatory behavior.
1 is a scientifically a valid usage of attempting to use some statistics to minimize issues. The other 2 not so much. But most people don't use the other 2 as much. They intuitively use 1 based on public perception and occasionally slip into 2. Even insurance companies will charge males more because they, as a group, cost more.
Now consider the statements on the auto insurance company where they charge blacks 50% more on average than white/Asians... they don't use race in their calculation. But if they had used race they might be able to treat the ethnic group a bit more like "men" and disperse the cost over the group which might make it easier for any individual to get insurance. I don't know the particulars about insurance I'm just posting a thought.
And what about Affirmative action which racially discriminates. I've brought it up multiple times and its just ignored and dismissed. Do we call that racist because it discriminates racially?
We'll never be able to have conversations about stuff like this because of Zaryia's and MirkoS77 view on racist... because all of what I just pointed out can be considered "racist". And you can't just magically untie racism with the original meaning of racism... and it becomes taboo. It tends to have STRONG implications of someone's motivation when talking about racially discriminating. It doesn't seem to matter to them, can we label it racist? Yes technically.. good enough that all that matters and there shouldn't EVER be a reason to do it...
I am not reading anything into it, when someone judges a race based on the race, that is what the watered down definition "racist" means.
The problem is tho the PC culture and the far left's crazy idea of reading racism into anything and thinking that they can get rid of, what is a very normal human behaviour of discrimination
I am not reading anything into it, when someone judges a race based on the race, that is what the watered down definition "racist" means.
The problem is tho the PC culture and the far left's crazy idea of reading racism into anything and thinking that they can get rid of, what is a very normal human behaviour of discrimination
Your response to me presumes some sort of reasoning
do you think they looked at certain black neighbourhoods and notice the crime and behaviour of some and then wrongfully decided everyone was like that?
Did they decide that by discriminating based on race? Or did they decide they wanted to just stick with the safer probability? Is this an intuitive probabilistic choice or a bigoted choice?
Its not clear based on the scenario you presented but you made a decision how to characterize it. I guess I'm saying I have no idea, there is no real evidence of specifics on motivation. Maybe they didn't think everyone was like that but chose not to deal with any one any way.
I also think the term "racist" is worse than that today as its watered down to the point even making an observation based on race, or ethnicity is racist... and any disparity in equal representation is racist. Or if you comment on a country that is probably better in every metric as being good, and countries that are shitholes by our standards... its racist. Even if you never thought about race.
I am not reading anything into it, when someone judges a race based on the race, that is what the watered down definition "racist" means.
The problem is tho the PC culture and the far left's crazy idea of reading racism into anything and thinking that they can get rid of, what is a very normal human behaviour of discrimination
Your response to me presumes some sort of reasoning
do you think they looked at certain black neighbourhoods and notice the crime and behaviour of some and then wrongfully decided everyone was like that?
Did they decide that by discriminating based on race? Or did they decide they wanted to just stick with the safer probability? Is this an intuitive probabilistic choice or a bigoted choice?
Its not clear based on the scenario you presented but you made a decision how to characterize it. I guess I'm saying I have no idea, there is no real evidence of specifics on motivation. Maybe they didn't think everyone was like that but chose not to deal with any one any way.
I also think the term "racist" is worse than that today as its watered down to the point even making an observation based on race, or ethnicity is racist... and any disparity in equal representation is racist. Or if you comment on a country that is probably better in every metric as being good, and countries that are shitholes by our standards... its racist. Even if you never thought about race.
Well you said it's justified to act on those disparities, and judge all people of color based on them, even if they have a perfectly clean record. So you're in no position to say what is or isn't racist.
Instead of arguing about what racism is I figure pictures are worth a thousand words.
What? I not sure what your trying to say? I love burritos, is that racist or not?
It's okay, I know that Trump supporters refuse to see the truth when Trump is involved. I don't blame you, I just see you as caught up in a cult of personality not unlike Scientologists who are caught up in a cult of their own.
*sigh* Kiflom.
@waahahah: Bigoted isn't the same thing a racist though... are you moving the bar. And I don't see the evidence of his bigotry's. I see evidence he has poor word choice 90% of the time or just poor judgment.
You've not adressed this: what makes you give Trump the benefit of the doubt he isn't a racist? I'd appreciate an answer. Don't say simply a lack of evidence, as we've agreed everyone holds biases which determines which we promote. What determines the evidence you favor? Is it purely partisan? Do you need to excuse him to sleep better at night to support his policies? Or perhaps, as I suspect, your apologetics stem from your identification with his prejudices and you've not the conjones to come and admit what is driving your defense?
I've met and know Trump supporters who very begrudgingly back him as they've no other option by their political convictions, but nonetheless wholly repudiate his character. While I don't agree with that necessarily (I believe people should hold politics subservient to their basic values of decency and respect), I can understand and accept it. What I can't understand is people attempting to defend so vehemently (as you are) his personal character seemingly based on nothing but it, which is obviously in the gutter, and is the grass roots of racism.
Your first post presumes motive. IE bigoted.
The fact is if you look up objective standards, the countries he talked about are shitholes and Mexico objectively aren't sending us their best...Places like Norway the have high standards of living and are culturally better more often than Americans, people that come from the Scandinavian countries do extremely well in America.
the border is being heavily exploited by human trafficker's and the cartel... and you want to put that in the same pattern as Trump's dad got a lawsuit for discrimination then Trump got a similar law suite for discrimination... while there is evidence to suggest this wasn't a ubiquitous policy?
There is nothing to suggest he holds "racist" views. Apart from the New York discrimination... the only evidence his anti Mexican and comments on countries would suggest he's not careful about caring about race. When being slapped in the face with reality he makes plain observations. Like I mentioned previously do we have a cartel/migrant problem on our north border? Are there caravan's of white people?
So he has a bunch of anti - illegal alien - rhetoric.. he helped Mexico's labor parties... and your still presuming that the rhetoric is because of prejudice… when its only brown people that are creating the problem. You can only refer to brown people when talking about the people running across the border.
My first post is presuming motive based on evidence in light of who he is. That's not bigotry, it is viewing every aspect in coming to the conclusions pertaining to the beliefs and consequently motives instead of selectively, something you refuse to do in only clinging to semantics and viewing every piece of evidence in exclusivity. That methodology suggests far more bigotry on your part than mine could ever do.
Stop stating that there is nothing to suggest Trump holds any racist views, it is patently false. There is NO IRONCLAD PROOF he is a racist, that I'll easily concede, but it's certainly suggestible. Actions he's taken combined with his character suggest racist tendencies heavily. You say "apart from New York discrimination". Well, that's convenient, isn't it? "Apart". So which is it? Seems to me you've now admitted that there's not 0 evidence as you've previously stated, now there isn't because you're appealing to special pleading. I'm not tossing aside the examples you gave, the difference between you and I is I view them in totality in context of Trump's character where you don't, and you disregard other evidence that doesn't speak well on him. Factor in all of it, or none of it. That you are treading on concession doesn't speak strongly on your position in the slightest.
So your saying I don't care about evidence to suggest he's not a racist, I'm going to right all of that off as ulterior motives and continue to interpret everything as racist. Thanks for clarifying how much of a bigot you are.
The only evidence there is, trump generally isn't worried about race or race relations or how other people will interpret what he says. The evidence is far stronger he is more liberal in his day to day and just doesn't give a **** about offending people.
Just like you're saying to yourself, "I don't care about evidence to suggest he's a racist, I'm going to "right" all of that off under other motives unrelated to race and continue to interpret everything as non-racist".
Yes, thanks for clarifying how much of a bigot you are.
Except as I mentioned, you've yet to take responsibility (or provided explanation) for explaining how your position is more legitimate than anyone else's when Trump's character is accounted for. Which I see is a point I made which you're conveniently marginalized when it is the core determinant of prejudice, because if you acknowledged it in trying to ascertain said prejudice, it immediately compromises your position. So either present a defense for Trump's character, or resign yourself to the fact that your "evidence" isn't going to be factored the same as if it were viewed in the absence of it. And "evidence he has poor word choice 90% of the time or just poor judgment" and "just doesn't give a **** about offending people" is nothing but an excuse for being an asshole.
And here's a hint for you: racists are generally assholes.
On the other hand if you want words, here's the word of a textbook example of a republican.
Trump's words on Curiel and the entire NY Trump Apartment case are racist issues, actions, and events.
There is no way around this fact.
He's better off saying it was a momentary lapse in judgement and a few actions don't make him racist and then make a list of things Trump did to help minorities. Instead this guy is going complete Stormfront and just saying this shit isn't racism.
Idiotic.
You've not adressed this: what makes you give Trump the benefit of the doubt he isn't a racist? I'd appreciate an answer. Don't say simply a lack of evidence, as we've agreed everyone holds biases which determines which we promote. What determines the evidence you favor? Is it purely partisan? Do you need to excuse him to sleep better at night to support his policies? Or perhaps, as I suspect, your apologetics stem from your identification with his prejudices and you've not the conjones to come and admit what is driving your defense?
I'm not a bigot?
My first post is presuming motive based on evidence in light of who he is. That's not bigotry,
Yes it is. You have a world view so you judge his acts through that world view. If your presuming motive your basically bigoted.
Stop stating that there is nothing to suggest Trump holds any racist views, it is patently false. There is NO IRONCLAD PROOF he is a racist, that I'll easily concede, but it's easily suggestible. Actions he's taken combined with his character suggest racist tendencies heavily. You say "apart from New York discrimination". Well, that's convenient, isn't it? "Apart". So which is it? Seems to me you've now admitted that there's not 0 evidence as you've previously stated, now there isn't except because you've appealed to special pleading. I'm not tossing aside the examples you gave, the difference between you and I is I view them in totality in context of Trump's character where you don't, and you disregard other evidence that doesn't speak well on him. Factor in all of it, or none of it. That you are treading on concession doesn't speak strongly on your position in the slightest.
...
Just like you're saying to yourself, "I don't care about evidence to suggest he's a racist, I'm going to "right" all of that off under other motives unrelated to race and continue to interpret everything as non-racist".
I didn't dismiss any evidence. And your mischaracterizing my argument, I didn't merely state apart from the lawsuits. I pointed out different ways of interpreting it. For instance the strongest evidence... the New York lawsuits. There is no evidence to attribute anything directly to Donald Trump. I'll clarify the reasoning here.
How do you use this as proof Donald is a racist? Sure his business discriminated but there is nothing tying it specifically to him or his view point, or a unified policy his company had. There were a couple of instances of discrimination, and a few accusations a Fred Trump. Also why hasn't any one talked about in 1975 He began an affirmative action policy to reach 10% black occupancy. By 1977 he exceeded this. Out of 100s of employees only 38 were named in discrimination, and out of the 43 accusers only 3 accused Fred Trump directly. There is 0 evidence that Donald Trump created or carried out racist policies.
Now compare that to how you dismissed Trump's personal generosity to random people, some of which were minorities. "Ulterior motives"... Based on what evidence? You presumed it. That's basic Bigotry.
And sorry, "evidence he has poor word choice 90% of the time or just poor judgment" and "just doesn't give a **** about offending people" isn't an excuse for being a racist, it's an excuse for being an asshole.
The evidence doesn't suggest racism though. It just shows he's not worried about being implicated in race when making observations or talking shit to people. If all he's doing is talking shit while negotiating a trade deal with Mexico that has strong labor rights for Mexican's... its hard to think he's even anti Mexico. The only thing he seems to view negatively is illegal entry into the country... which is disproportionally an issue with the southern border, as well as cartels human/drug trafficking.
Except as I mentioned, you've yet to take responsibility (or provided explanation) for explaining how your position is more legitimate than anyone else's when Trump's character is accounted for. Which I see is a point I made which you're conveniently marginalized when it is the core determinant of prejudice, because if you acknowledged it in trying to ascertain said prejudice, it immediately compromises your position. So either present a defense for Trump's character, or resign yourself to the fact that your "evidence" isn't going to be factored the same as if it were viewed in the absence of it. And sorry, "evidence he has poor word choice 90% of the time or just poor judgment" and "just doesn't give a **** about offending people" isn't an excuse for being a racist, it's an excuse for being an asshole.
Except I have... its called taking a nuanced approach to looking at people's potential motivations, surrounding circumstances... and generally not being a bigot and presuming any motives/values based, nor am I willing to call someone a racist for poor articulation of thoughts and inappropriate wording.
Well you said it's justified to act on those disparities, and judge all people of color based on them, even if they have a perfectly clean record. So you're in no position to say what is or isn't racist.
No one is "judging" them though. Its a way to quickly figure out which is a safer/better choice for your business without any better information at hand. Its totally different then Racism when.. Nazi's do it. The entire point of statistics is to predict better choices with less particular information.
There is a totally different reasonings, one is "whats the safe bet and what information can I use to make a quick decision" vs "we hate these people and want to stop them from participating in our society".
And no, the point is at the point of using statistics you don't know ANYTHING about the individual. That's the point. You can't use "they have a perfectly clean record" when the idea is discrimination to minimizing finding people with records, paying for those background checks and rejecting them. That's a fact of hindsight at the point where we'd be filtering applicants. If you have 50 people interested in an apartment you want to only go through the process with the top 10 or have a priority of best candidate to worst candidate.
edit: the point is that there is different levels of discrimination. Some is hate, some is based on unfounded beliefs, some are based on statistical realities that are unfortunate. Even IF we chose not to prioritize, the discrimination would happen any way with higher rejection rates... the example I gave with black people paying 50% more than whites on average..
You've not adressed this: what makes you give Trump the benefit of the doubt he isn't a racist? I'd appreciate an answer. Don't say simply a lack of evidence, as we've agreed everyone holds biases which determines which we promote. What determines the evidence you favor? Is it purely partisan? Do you need to excuse him to sleep better at night to support his policies? Or perhaps, as I suspect, your apologetics stem from your identification with his prejudices and you've not the conjones to come and admit what is driving your defense?
I'm not a bigot?
You know you are misusing that word............
You've not adressed this: what makes you give Trump the benefit of the doubt he isn't a racist? I'd appreciate an answer. Don't say simply a lack of evidence, as we've agreed everyone holds biases which determines which we promote. What determines the evidence you favor? Is it purely partisan? Do you need to excuse him to sleep better at night to support his policies? Or perhaps, as I suspect, your apologetics stem from your identification with his prejudices and you've not the conjones to come and admit what is driving your defense?
I'm not a bigot?
You know you are misusing that word............
Well.. it "technically" can be used that way.
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
Isn't it annoying when you can imply so much more?
edit: I don't actually think there is any worse implication than what I want to say...
I'm not a bigot?
You know you are misusing that word............
Well.. it "technically" can be used that way.
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
Isn't it annoying when you can imply so much more?
edit: I don't actually I don't think there is any worse implication than what I want to say...
No you're using it wrong.
@LJS9502_basic: Do you have a better word for overt intolerance and prejudice against an individual?
Not liking someone who is offensive does not mean one is a bigot.
The actual definition of the word from the dictionary.....
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Has NOTHING to do with a disagreement between two people.........
@LJS9502_basic: Do you have a better word for overt intolerance and prejudice against an individual?
Not liking someone who is offensive does not mean one is a bigot.
The actual definition of the word from the dictionary.....
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Has NOTHING to do with a disagreement between two people.........
I never suggested he's a bigot for a disagreement.
Well you said it's justified to act on those disparities, and judge all people of color based on them, even if they have a perfectly clean record. So you're in no position to say what is or isn't racist.
No one is "judging" them though. Its a way to quickly figure out which is a safer/better choice for your business without any better information at hand. Its totally different then Racism when.. Nazi's do it. The entire point of statistics is to predict better choices with less particular information.
There is a totally different reasonings, one is "whats the safe bet and what information can I use to make a quick decision" vs "we hate these people and want to stop them from participating in our society".
And no, the point is at the point of using statistics you don't know ANYTHING about the individual. That's the point. You can't use "they have a perfectly clean record" when the idea is discrimination to minimizing finding people with records, paying for those background checks and rejecting them. That's a fact of hindsight at the point where we'd be filtering applicants. If you have 50 people interested in an apartment you want to only go through the process with the top 10 or have a priority of best candidate to worst candidate.
edit: the point is that there is different levels of discrimination. Some is hate, some is based on unfounded beliefs, some are based on statistical realities that are unfortunate. Even IF we chose not to prioritize, the discrimination would happen any way with higher rejection rates... the example I gave with black people paying 50% more than whites on average..
Just keep digging yourself into a deeper hole. You clearly don't realize that what you're saying is racist...
Just keep digging yourself into a deeper hole. You clearly don't realize that what you're saying is racist...
Describing different types of discrimination isn't racist... you'd have to be retarded to think that.
Condoning that type of discrimination IS racist. You'd have to be retarded to be racist.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment