Ahh, I must have skimmed that part. Okay, so if we ignore the cherry-picking, that's a good article. But still, how do we define racism? If it can be applied to statements at all, Trump's "you're biased, Judge, because you're Mexican" - isn't that a racist statement?
If we're judging people's hearts, then Trump isn't racist, sure. He's opportunistic, and he's appealed to racists. But that's not what we're doing. We're judging his words.
We're getting somewhere at least.
Certainly there is some argument to be made there. However, the train of thought from nearly all the coverage I've seen is nowhere nearly as nuanced as that, it goes more like Trump made a racist statement -> Trump is an open racist -> Trump is basically David Duke. There is a huge grey area here that I feel is being missed. To give it some perspective,
Dog whistling seems to be the theory that if you want to know what someone really believes, you have to throw away decades of consistent statements supporting the side of an issue that everyone else in the world supports, and instead pay attention only to one weird out-of-character non-statement which implies he supports a totally taboo position which is perhaps literally the most unpopular thing it is possible to think.
And then you have to imagine some of the most brilliant rhetoricians and persuaders in the world are calculating that it’s worth risking exposure this taboo belief in order to win support from a tiny group with five-digit membership whose support nobody wants, by sending a secret message, which inevitably every single media outlet in the world instantly picks up on and makes the focus of all their coverage for the rest of the election.
Sure, it's easy to be scientifically literate when you don't let your beliefs get in the way of knowledge. Does that make liberals morally better? No. Do they know more? Yes. Do they make better policy? Yes. Isn't that what matters?
It's possible to be right for the wrong reasons and wrong for the right reasons.
For example, let's assume Global Warming is a thing. Conservatives say "Global Warming isn't a thing" and advocate for reckless deregulation, cutting spending, cutting taxes, etc ie. what they would normally do. Liberals say "Global Warming is a thing" and raise taxes, impose regulations, fund environment-defending government agencies, etc which is also what they would normally do.
The obvious conclusion to draw is "Well, the liberals identify the problem so their solution must be better than none", but it's a bit more complicated than that. Assume for the sake of argument that conservatives are right about the economy, namely that deregulated markets are better at improving the human condition, at creating wealth, at leading to innovation, etc. If the conservatives are correct then the comparison is a bit different: while not acknowledging Global Warming, their policies result in greater wealth accumulation which results in more investment in new technologies which results in more cost effective environmentally friendly technology which reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, the liberal policies that actually try to reduce Global Warming leads to subsidies going to crooks, wealth being reduced, and economic stagnation making it harder and harder to balance "protecting the environment" with all the other liberal goals like "protecting the poor". In this situation, the conservatives, despite totally ignoring the problem, happen to have policies that help solve a different problem that
indirectly solves the problem that they ignore.
Obviously just a hypothetical, but still one worth considering, I think. It isn't necessarily clear-cut.
One article. One. Article. This is the face of liberalism, folks.
Two, actually, but I screwed up the formatting (google the headline and you should find it)
You asked for examples, I provided some. I have things to be doing besides looking for hysterical Democrats writing articles about racist Trump supporters.
A forum. What even is a liberalism? I'm pretty sure that some liberals were smug. But when you give blanket statements like "liberals, in general, were smug," you need more evidence than that.
I can't provide infinite evidence. I can't get a citation from every self-identifying liberal and compare their average "smugness" before and after the election. At some point you need to provide counterexamples.
Strawman much? I don't think that "Trump is racist" is equivalent to "every non-liberal ever is a racist." You might want to have your eyes checked.
I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to Mr. "har har I thought racism was disliking black people har har"
Not all, but *shrug* that's what I see in the alt-right. I realize that their public face might be as inaccurate as the SJWs on Facebook, but what else do I have to go with?
I'd say that the alt-right is to conservatives what SJWs are to liberals but then I'd be severely overestimating the influence of the alt-right because they have no influence in academia or powerful media organizations currying their favour (No, Breitbart doesn't count)