Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Conservative Racism

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Conservative Racism
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 516 of 953 (859968)
08-04-2019 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 499 by Faith
08-04-2019 4:04 PM


Re: New Hampshire also "infested" according to Trump
Does it matter to anyone that Trump also referred to New Hampshire, which is 94% white, as a drug infested den?"
It seemed to have mattered to New Hampshire: They didn't like it too much.
So Trump understands that phrases like"drug infested"/"rat infested" can be insulting to the people who live there, yet he chose to use the phrase in a deliberate insult to an elected member of Congress.
Either Trump deliberately intended to insult the people of Baltimore or he doesn't care at all who gets insulted when he's angry; either way, it doesn't really reflect well on Trump.

It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn't know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 499 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 4:04 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 518 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 9:52 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 517 of 953 (859969)
08-04-2019 8:33 PM


Wow! Weird distraction!
People! Trump wasn't literally telling Cummings to go back to Baltimore to fix Baltimore's problems.
Trump was telling Cummings to go back in the same way you'd tell someone to "go jump in the lake." Usually, that wouldn't mean you literally think the person should go swimming; you're just telling them to shut up.
Trump wasn't expressing the opinion that turning one's district into a paradise is a prerequisite to be a member of Congress. He's telling Cummings just to shut up. And the reason Cummings should shut up is that he's a black person from a black person ghetto who only knows black person ghetto culture and he's out of line telling white people how to run a white people country.
Just like when he told Ocasio-Ortez, Pressley, Tlaib, and Omar to go back to where they came from. He was reminding them the colored people countries are a bunch of shithole countries, so colored people can't even run their own lives, so colored people have no business telling white people how to run a white people country. So they should all just shut up.
The reason why Trump's white racist base cheered so loudly is because they understand exactly what Trump is saying. People of color are too dysfunctional to run their own communities, so they should stay in their proper place and quit bothering decent white people.

It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn't know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman

Replies to this message:
 Message 520 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 9:55 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 527 of 953 (860013)
08-05-2019 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 518 by Faith
08-04-2019 9:52 PM


Re: New Hampshire also "infested" according to Trump
Um, I don't suppose you recall that Cummings had first insulted Trump about his immigration views.
Even if Cummings insulted Trump first, and even if we agree that returning insults is the appropriate response, then Trump should have chosen one that didn't have racist overtones.
Because by choosing a racist insult, Trump didn't just insult Cummings, he was insulting all black Americans. He wasn't just telling Cummings to shut up, he was telling all black Americans to mind their place.

It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn't know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 518 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 9:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 536 by Faith, posted 08-05-2019 11:26 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 531 of 953 (860027)
08-05-2019 10:22 AM


Laila Lalami on "Go Back".
Laila Lalami has written a column in The Nation:
Trump Has Brought Back 'Conditional Citizenship'
She touches on some of the issues being discussed here.
None of this is to say that whites, particularly those who are poor or without a college education, don’t struggle. Of course they do.... But it is to say that when white Americans blast the government for not solving these problems, they are not told that they should be silent or that they should go back.

It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn't know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 533 of 953 (860048)
08-05-2019 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 519 by Hyroglyphx
08-04-2019 9:55 PM


Re: Krugman on "American carnage"
Because the context that I shared was one of not defending Trump but of discussing the exaggerations of the Regressive Left wing of the Democratic Party. This is now the third time to try to steer the conversation towards that and every time you dodge it.
You tried to illustrate "the exaggerations of the Regressive Left wing" with an example that turns out to be bonafide racism. If you want to discuss unfair accusations of racism, you need to find a better example. Or do a better example of convincing us that your example really is relevant. It's not really dodging an issue if you're failed to demonstrate there actually is an issue.
-
Your mind immediately drew a connection to rat-infested hellhole with black people. That's kind of amazing to me...
I know. You tried to gain a rhetorical advantage by accusing me of racism. It didn't work. I not only continued to explain how Trump's comments were racist, but I tried to explain why it matters who the target is.
If my explanations are unclear, I'm willing to make another attempt.
-
...voices in the middle are getting drowned out by the shrill voices of the extreme on both sides.
If being in the middle means ignoring blatant examples of racism in our important government officials, then I'm not sure that the middle is really morally defensible position.

It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn't know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 519 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-04-2019 9:55 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 547 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2019 7:19 PM Chiroptera has seen this message but not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 534 of 953 (860049)
08-05-2019 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 532 by dwise1
08-05-2019 10:52 AM


Re: Billions of dollars and no results
I think he meant, " You now know..."

It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn't know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 532 by dwise1, posted 08-05-2019 10:52 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


(7)
Message 545 of 953 (860111)
08-05-2019 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 536 by Faith
08-05-2019 11:26 AM


Re: New Hampshire also "infested" according to Trump
...it's an accurate description of the conditions he was talking about, and many others have said the same thing.
But some kind of literal, dictionary "accuracy" isn't really germane, is it? Something doesn't have to be false in order to be racist. What makes it racist is the context: who said it, to whom was it said, what were the choice of words, what images do the words bring to mind to the intended audience (in this case, Trumps supporters), what visceral feelings do the words invoke in traditionally oppressed minorities who hear them, and what was the true meaning of the statement.
So what is the context? As a member of the legislative branch's oversight committees, Cummings has a responsibility to oversee, among other things, the conditions of the executive branch's management of immigrant detention centers. As a result, Cummings is an important critic of the conditions found in the detention centers.
Trump doesn't like to be criticized, so he's telling Cummings to shut up. How is he telling him to shut up? By associating him with the failures in his district. Why else would he bring up the problems in Baltimore? It can't be because they are analogous; they are very different problems with different causes and require different solutions. They have nothing to do with one another, so there can't be any reason to bring up Baltimore except to label Cummings as a failure by association.
And how does associating Cummings with Baltimore make him a failure? It can't be because he's somehow personally responsible for whatever conditions are in his district. Unlike the current humanitarian crisis in immigrant detention centers (which are the direct result of orders given by Trump himself), the problems in Baltimore predate Cumming's career, have deep, complicated structural causes, and will require the cooperation of many agencies spread over several levels of government; and in all this time Cummings has been but one member among many others of the legislative branch. It is absurd to think that somehow Cummings has to single-handedly solve Baltimore's problems before he can criticize Trumps policies, and I don't believe this is what Trump is saying.
And now let's look at Trump's choice of words. It has long been a feature of racist thought that black people's problems are caused by black people themselves due to their own failures. This much should be obvious. I have read white pundits criticize black ghetto culture, I have read politicians gin up fear among whites about black crime, I have heard my own relatives talk about "those people" and "they way they live". Black people are associated in the minds of racists with ghettos and crime and dysfunctional families, not to mention laziness and personal irresponsibility. When racist think about black people, one of the associations they make is rat-infested slums.
Black people understand this. They have watch the same depictions of black people on TV, they see the same news programs, they overhear white people talking, and they can read the comments and letters to the editor that racists write. So when they hear a white person talking about a black majority area being "rat-infested", they understand quite well what associations are being made.
So when a known racist like Trump responds to legitimate criticism by bringing up an inappropriate comparison that is in no way analogous to the criticism he's receiving and he's using language that he's already been informed has racist implications, what do we conclude?
I conclude that he's telling a black person to mind his place and to quit bothering white people because black people are too irresponsible and unreliable and self-centered to really matter. This pretty much fits with Trump's usual behavior; it explains why his white racist base is excited by this; and the other explanations seem to me to be strained.
Edited by Chiroptera, : A pretty unfortunate typo. Found a couple of others, too.

It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn't know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 536 by Faith, posted 08-05-2019 11:26 AM Faith has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 549 of 953 (860373)
08-07-2019 10:08 AM


Backlash against NYT headline
From The Guardian:
New York Times changes front-page Trump headline after backlash
Not exactly analogous to the issues we were just discussing, but some of the principles are on display here.
In reporting Trumps response to the El Paso terrorist shooting, The New York Times originally ran the article with the headline:
TRUMP URGES UNITY VS RACISM
As Nate Silver put it:
Not sure "TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. RACISM" is how I would have framed the story.
Here we have a classic example of where apologists for white nationalism can take out their dictionaries, do a word-for-word parsing, and claim the headline is accurate, even though anyone with basic reading compression skills can see how the headline is misleading.
I realize those who can't see Trump is a racist won't get it.
The NYT did change the headline, but I don't know whether it made the print edition:
ASSAILING HATE BUT NOT GUNS

It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn't know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman

Replies to this message:
 Message 552 by JonF, posted 08-07-2019 11:15 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 553 of 953 (860405)
08-07-2019 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 552 by JonF
08-07-2019 11:15 AM


Re: Backlash against NYT headline
He seems to do that a lot. I typed "Trump calls for unity then attacks Democrats" into my search engine and got hits for several different instances.

It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn't know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 552 by JonF, posted 08-07-2019 11:15 AM JonF has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 555 of 953 (860415)
08-07-2019 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 554 by AZPaul3
08-07-2019 1:39 PM


Re: Backlash against NYT headline
In the entire history of white nationalism, "unity" has always meant, "agree with us or shut up."

It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn't know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 554 by AZPaul3, posted 08-07-2019 1:39 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 562 of 953 (860479)
08-07-2019 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 561 by JonF
08-07-2019 5:04 PM


In the page you linked, there's link to another article on the theme of Trump's call for unity:
Trump flubs question on how to bring Americans together (again)
When asked by Laura Ingraham what he could do to "unite the country at a time of great polarization,"
The president responded by lashing out at his perceived political enemies and suggesting that the key to harmony is having everyone agree to do whatever Trump wants....

It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn't know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 561 by JonF, posted 08-07-2019 5:04 PM JonF has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 564 of 953 (860511)
08-08-2019 10:22 AM


Warnings about right wing terrorism have been ignored for a long time
From The Guardian:
'Blood on their hands': the intelligence officer whose warning over white supremacy was ignored
Ten years ago, analysts warned against a rise in rightwing racial terrorism. The Congressional Republicans howled in outrage, screaming how this was a cover to target conservative groups. As a result, all focus on rightwing groups were shut down and people even lost their jobs. This has had a chilling effect in the law enforcement community prevent proper study of and adequate resources devote to rightwing violence.
The Guardian has published an interview with Daryl Johnson, the former Homeland Security official who led that analysis team.
Some excerpts:
Should the communities targeted by white nationalist violence — African Americans, Jewish Americans, Muslim Americans, Hispanic Americans — feel confident that their government is doing enough to protect them?
I don’t think these communities have much confidence right now. And they shouldn’t have confidence, because for the past 10 years, our government has basically failed us on this issue.
If the term rightwing extremism had been used for decades without any complaint, what changed in 2009?
There was a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress. There was a massive loss at the polls for Republicans, and I think they were trying to grasp at anything they could use to try to persuade conservative Democrats to vote Republican in the next election.
Why do you think the Republican Party doesn’t want to talk about rightwing terrorism and white supremacy?
Partly because they’re the ones who are arming Americans. No matter how many times you can try to blame the person for carrying out the act, they still have access to weapons that are meant for war.
And I also believe, going back to their campaign strategy for the 2010 midterms, there’s blood on their hands. They’re definitely fanning the flame and providing the fuel, and it’s all to win elections.
What would be the signs that there’s change in the government’s approach, but in a negative direction?
That’s the way it’s headed right now. I don’t see this problem going away anytime soon. It’s getting worse. The changing demographics in America can’t be stopped and it will continue to feed the extremists who fear the United States is becoming brown and not white. And when you have a president mainstreaming your ideas, a president who seems to lend tacit support to you, it gives you a license to misbehave.

It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn't know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 565 of 953 (860709)
08-10-2019 11:32 AM


Krugman: Republicans are enablers of racial terrorism
Last Tuesday's column by Paul Krugman:
Trump, Tax Cuts and Terrorism
In which Krugman asks the question: why is the Republican Party the enabler of racial terrorism?
Don’t pretend to be shocked. Just look at G.O.P. responses to the massacre in El Paso.... But as far as I can tell, not one prominent Republican has even hinted at the obvious link between Donald Trump’s repeated incitements to violence and the upsurge in hate crimes.
He also mentions how ten years ago Republicans shut down the attempt by Homeland Security analysts to warn about the rise in white nationalist terrorism, and so points out the blood on their hands. But the Republicans' true goal?
The central story of U.S. politics since the 1970s is the takeover of the Republican Party by economic radicals, determined to slash taxes for the wealthy while undermining the social safety net.
With the arguable exception of George H.W. Bush, every Republican president since 1980 has pushed through tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the 1 percent while trying to defund and/or privatize key social programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act.
This agenda is, however, unpopular. Most voters believe that the rich should pay more, not less, in taxes, and want spending on social programs to rise, not fall.
So how do Republicans win elections? By appealing to racial animus. This is such an obvious fact of American political life that you have to be willfully blind not to see it.
Conclusion:
In effect, then, the Republican Party decided that a few massacres were an acceptable price to pay in return for tax cuts.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Added a sentence to make a point more clear.

It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn't know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 566 of 953 (860743)
08-11-2019 11:19 AM


The global tentacles of white nationalism
From The New York Times:
The Global Machine Behind the Rise of Far-Right Nationalism
A few months ago, I read Dark Money by Jane Mayer, and I've just started reading Democracy in Chains by Nancy MacLean. These books detail American billionaires' creation of a fifth column to subvert American democracy under an ideology of "free market libertarianism" because of their resentment that they have to pay taxes and that health and safety and labor regulations limit what they can do with their businesses.
Yesterday, I brought up a column by Paul Krugman pointing out how the free market libertarian bolsheviks are using white nationalism to push their agenda. By coincidence, this morning's New York Times has an article on the racism part.
The article talks about how all the white nationalist groups in the US and in Europe are linked, and how these links lead to Russia, and how these links are deliberately hidden.
The article focuses on Sweden, but makes it clear that the authors feel that it is similar everywhere, including the US.
Among the examples:
Witnesses describe how Russian "journalists" were offering Syrian immigrants money to stage a fight to showcase "violence" in immigrant communities.
One supplier of racist "news" to white nationalist sites is a hidden portion of the website of a Russian/Ukrainian owned auto parts store; this store also gives money to these white nationalist sites for "advertising ".
Edited by Chiroptera, : Typo.
Edited by Chiroptera, : More typos.

It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn't know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman

Replies to this message:
 Message 567 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2019 1:51 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 575 of 953 (860769)
08-11-2019 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 567 by Hyroglyphx
08-11-2019 1:51 PM


Re: The global tentacles of white nationalism
How pervasive is it theorized to be?
I don't know whether this will answer the question, but here is a snippet from the article:
The Times analyzed more than 12 million available links from over 18,000 domains to four prominent far-right sites Nyheter Idag, Samhallsnytt, Fria Tider and Nya Tider. The data was culled by Mr. Lindholm from two search engine optimization tools and represents a snapshot of all known links through July 2....
Over all, more than one in five links were from non-Swedish language sites. English-language sites, along with Norwegian ones, linked the most, nearly a million times. But other European-language far-right sites Russian but also Czech, Danish, German, Finnish and Polish were also frequent linkers.
The Times identified 356 domains that linked to all four Swedish sites.
Many are well known in American far-right circles. Among them is the Gatestone Institute, a think tank whose site regularly stokes fears about Muslims in the United States and Europe. Its chairman until last year was John R. Bolton, now Mr. Trump’s national security adviser, and its funders have included Rebekah Mercer, a prominent wealthy Trump supporter.
Other domains that linked to all four Swedish sites included Stormfront, one of the oldest and largest American white supremacist sites; Voice of Europe, a Kremlin-friendly right-wing site; a Russian-language blog called Sweden4Rus.nu; and FreieWelt.net, a site supportive of the AfD in Germany.
-
I should mention, in case it wasn't clear from my initial post: The article focuses on the rise of the alt-right in Sweden. Presumably because the rise of the alt-right in Sweden was so dramatic and, in some ways, unexpected, and because false stories about Muslim "no -go zones" in Swedish cities and Trump's cite of a Fox news story of immigrant violence in Sweden.
Although the article mentions the various countries' alt-right groups inviting each other to each other's meetings as speakers and how they use each other's false news stories, the article mainly focuses on Russia as an important source and clearing house of disinformation.
Also, the article confines itself mainly to groups that are bona fidely alt-right, although it also points out how disinformation has helped alt-right views to seep into the mainstream political discourse.

It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn't know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 567 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2019 1:51 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 579 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2019 6:49 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024