Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

Did you actually look at the congressional district, though? Or just the county, which is not the same thing?

http://www.ajc.com/news/gen-politics/trump-trashes-john-lewis-district-things-know-about-5th-congressional-district/6ud2uFWqgOU0RF7vRaIpJP/

The district is made up of 3 counties. I listed the two largest ones, which amount to 1.75 million people. The third one has a lower median income, 42,000 but only accounts for 250,000 people. So the two counties I mentioned make up 87.5% of the districts population.

Like, there's some assumptions being made there about why he called the place crime-infested. I find it much more probable that he called it crime-infested because it's a city than because he's black.

Sorry I don't buy that for a second. Because other times politicians who's area happens contains a metropolitan area (almost all politicians) criticize him he doesn't instantly respond that their district is a burning crime infested hell hole. Only when it's a black politician.

Well it's the only time he's used this particular attack against a congressman who criticized him, and the guy just happened to be black, like the time Trump did the hand-thing and funny voice to mock that cripple, who just happened to be a cripple with a congenital hand coordination problem.

[smjjames]

@Rolepgeek: It's BOTH because it's a city and because Lewis is black.

No! You don't get to make that assumption! Trump does enough explicit shit that you don't need to try and find more in every little thing he does! The fact that he's basically saying Lewis is incompetent because Lewis criticized him is bad enough, there's nothing there that makes it about race explicitly, and when the place actually does in fact have elevated levels of crime, it's hard to say it's fucking dogwhistling.

Trump's wrong about Lewis not attending to his own district given the rates at which crime has dropped there, but he does that to anyone who criticizes, regardless of race, gender, or politics.

I'm not even agreeing with Trump, FYI. Also, you made an assumption yourself.

He's constantly called the inner cities and areas that blacks live in, hellholes, during the campaign.

Also, cities in general have elevated levels of crime compared to their surroundings, so, elevated levels of crime compared to what? And what other cities?

[LoSboccacc]

you know what's weird? every time he disagree with a minority, he points out what he disagrees with, while everyone else points out the offended party is a minority. it's a weird way to argument someone is racist, bringing race into topic first.

[Neonivek]

you know what's weird? every time he disagree with a minority, he points out what he disagrees with, while everyone else points out the offended party is a minority. it's a weird way to argument someone is racist, bringing race into topic first.

Because it is kind of how it works if someone is basically doing everything they can to be prejudice towards someone because of their race but never calls out their race by name.

It would be like saying that pointing out that Jack the Ripper kills women is sexist... Because HE never said he hates women... He just kills them

So sure... Trump isn't racist... he just... by pure coincidence accused a black man of running crime wrought ghettos... AND has a history of doing similar things.

[Rolepgeek]

@Rolepgeek: It's BOTH because it's a city and because Lewis is black.

No! You don't get to make that assumption! Trump does enough explicit shit that you don't need to try and find more in every little thing he does! The fact that he's basically saying Lewis is incompetent because Lewis criticized him is bad enough, there's nothing there that makes it about race explicitly, and when the place actually does in fact have elevated levels of crime, it's hard to say it's fucking dogwhistling.

Trump's wrong about Lewis not attending to his own district given the rates at which crime has dropped there, but he does that to anyone who criticizes, regardless of race, gender, or politics.

I'm not even agreeing with Trump, FYI. Also, you made an assumption yourself.

He's constantly called the inner cities and areas that blacks live in, hellholes, during the campaign.

Also, cities in general have elevated levels of crime compared to their surroundings, so, elevated levels of crime compared to what? And what other cities?

Yes, compared to other cities. And obviously you're not agreeing with Trump.

Did you actually look at the congressional district, though? Or just the county, which is not the same thing?

http://www.ajc.com/news/gen-politics/trump-trashes-john-lewis-district-things-know-about-5th-congressional-district/6ud2uFWqgOU0RF7vRaIpJP/

The district is made up of 3 counties. I listed the two largest ones, which amount to 1.75 million people. The third one has a lower median income, 42,000 but only accounts for 250,000 people. So the two counties I mentioned make up 87.5% of the districts population.

Like, there's some assumptions being made there about why he called the place crime-infested. I find it much more probable that he called it crime-infested because it's a city than because he's black.

Sorry I don't buy that for a second. Because other times politicians who's area happens contains a metropolitan area (almost all politicians) criticize him he doesn't instantly respond that their district is a burning crime infested hell hole. Only when it's a black politician.

Well it's the only time he's used this particular attack against a congressman who criticized him, and the guy just happened to be black, like the time Trump did the hand-thing and funny voice to mock that cripple, who just happened to be a cripple with a congenital hand coordination problem.

The district contains about 750,000 people. Not 1.75 million. Source, source, source.

Median household income is not $56,000, as you can see from the same sources. You cannot assume that counties and districts have perfect overlap. They are not the same. There are statistics on the district, you do not need to use the counties as proxies.

[Reelya]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/donald-trump-calls-african-american-neighborhoods-ghettos-article-1.2848477

Donald Trump calls African-American neighborhoods 'ghettos' with 'so many horrible problems'

Trump has previously been rebuked for associating African-Americans – who comprise roughly 13% of the total population – with the words “inner cities.”

This article was from October of last year, before the election and well before the current Lewis thing. Like anyone Trump has his own lexicon / set of relations he uses in the wording he chooses to uses. And he has a long history of equating the term "inner cities" with african americans burning and looting and running wild. So the idea that a new statement he makes which "just happens" to equate an African American political leader to the idea of burning inner cities should be taken completely on it's own merits is disingenious, because that's asking us to take the words entirely out of context and to ignore previous statements and associations made by the same speaker. He was already known for coding racist language in this exact fashion.

"Benefit of the doubt" goes out the window what you have an earned reputation for doing the exact thing you seem to be doing. e.g. if a known con artist hits you with an unlikely story about how you need to give them a lot of money, you can say "well I have no reason not to trust you, purely based on that story" or you can say "well, the last 17 times you spun a sob story it turned out you were pulling a con ..." Sure, they might really need the money that one time, but are you going to give them the benefit of the doubt? Fool me once ... etc.

No, if you have a pre-existing reputation for explicitly connecting two different things (as Trump did in the election campaign in this situation), then you make a statement that implicitly connects the two things, you do not deserve benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean to connect those two things that one time. Note that Trump's not the one reeling this back in, it's other people trying to claim Trump didn't actually mean what it sounds like he meant. But that's revisionism since he clearly made those very connections in his campaign speeches.

[Rolepgeek]

Oh, I'm certain he's racist on the whole.

My issue is that you assume that a. the only reason he did so was that the congressman was black rather than because he represents african-americans in an inner city area (yes, there is a difference between interpersonal racism and statistical racism; Donald Trump doesn't do interpersonal shit like that, he's too focused on himself to consider himself part of a group in the manner required for interpersonal racism), and b. that he's wrong, without doing any research whatsoever. Literally took me three minutes of googling to find those statistics.

And yes, inner cities with high crime rates kinda suck to live in. That's sorta the problem. My dad lives in Baltimore, which had more murders than New York. Not per capita, just total number of murders was higher.

Appreciate you completely switching the direction as soon as I brought in sources, though. Real nice of you to allow us to transition smoothly to the actual meat of the argument.

[Neonivek]

It has honestly been what is so scary about Racism now that Trump is President.

That you are ONLY racist if you are explicitly racist! And by that I mean you MUST say "All Black People Are Gangsters".

[Reelya]

IDK, Roplegeek. Because Trump was rebuked, publicly, for this behavior, months ago, so he clearly should aware how it's going to come across. And given how hyper-sensitive Trump is to every little thing people say about him, there's basically no possible way that he wasn't aware of the behavior he was rebuked for.

If you're aware of how your words are going to come across yet you still do it then you don't get the defense that you "didn't mean it that way". Sure, plausible deniability can be valid some times, but just not in this situation because Trump should have been completely aware of the connections he was making in attacking a black congressional leader in this exact fashion.

[LoSboccacc]

It has honestly been what is so scary about Racism now that Trump is President.

That you are ONLY racist if you are explicitly racist! And by that I mean you MUST say "All Black People Are Gangsters".

eh, no point really arguing but still I'd like to underscore how minorities that are speaking pro-trump get a real racist backslash from "truthers" that want to divide between real minorities and compromised members of a minority, while detractors have to have to dig and be the one to bring up the race card to try and have a go at calling Trump racist.

[Rolepgeek]

I find the idea of dogwhistling questionable in the firstplace. There's some circumstances where it's pretty obvious(mostly thinking Reagan here), but Trump tends towards explicit racism if he's being racist. Remember the whole 'Mexican immigrants are rapists'?

IDK, Roplegeek. Because Trump was rebuked, publicly, for this behavior, months ago, so he clearly should aware how it's going to come across.

If you're aware of how your words are going to come across yet you still do it then you don't get the defense that you "didn't mean it that way".

Trump gives no shits for rebukes and tends to be more likely to repeat the behavior out of spite. He's racist when he thinks it's advantageous and he's an asshole. But he does that when speaking to crowds about crowds, not individuals. Individuals he just insults, period.

[Reelya]

That's just not true, Trump's been conducting smear campaigns of many public figures over extremely minor rebukes.

The idea that Trump isn't aware of previous rebukes because he's self-confident and thick skinned, that's just completely counter-factual because we wouldn't be having this current situation in the first place, if that was at all true.

The thing is, if you call him a racist he's just going to attack you back. But he's selling himself as being racist so he doesn't care so much about those rebukes. He's still completely aware of what he did that made him appear racist, but doubles-down on that behavior. He knows he's doing it and how it looks to other people. And if he knows how it looks to other people, he's doing it deliberately. it's not dog whistling because he already knew exactly the nature of the attack he was launching on John Lewis.

[Neonivek]

It has honestly been what is so scary about Racism now that Trump is President.

That you are ONLY racist if you are explicitly racist! And by that I mean you MUST say "All Black People Are Gangsters".

eh, no point really arguing but still I'd like to underscore how minorities that are speaking pro-trump get a real racist backslash from "truthers" that want to divide between real minorities and compromised members of a minority, while detractors have to have to dig and be the one to bring up the race card to try and have a go at calling Trump racist.

Yes it is a common problem that people are getting offended FOR a minority instead of letting them speak for themselves... Which in it of itself is racist. Assuming that is what you are talking about (Which is hard to decipher because you are using "Shutdown" jargon such as "Truthers"... So I would have to agree with you to know what you are talking about immediately)

Yet Trump doesn't try to be diplomatic and people are, for some unspeakable reason, holding Trump up to the standards of a President.

Which actually let me reiterate... Trump is the President of the United States of America (well President Elect). We should have higher standards in our presidents then we have in brain surgeons.

[Rolepgeek]

That's just not true, Trump's been conducting smear campaigns of many public figures over extremely minor rebukes.

The idea that Trump isn't aware of previous rebukes because he's self-confident and thick skinned, that's just completely counter-factual because we wouldn't be having this current situation in the first place, if that was at all true.

He's perfectly aware of rebukes, he just doesn't care to do what the people rebuking him want him to.

[smjjames]

I find the idea of dogwhistling questionable in the firstplace. There's some circumstances where it's pretty obvious(mostly thinking Reagan here), but Trump tends towards explicit racism if he's being racist. Remember the whole 'Mexican immigrants are rapists'?

IDK, Roplegeek. Because Trump was rebuked, publicly, for this behavior, months ago, so he clearly should aware how it's going to come across.

If you're aware of how your words are going to come across yet you still do it then you don't get the defense that you "didn't mean it that way".

Trump gives no shits for rebukes and tends to be more likely to repeat the behavior out of spite. He's racist when he thinks it's advantageous and he's an asshole. But he does that when speaking to crowds about crowds, not individuals. Individuals he just insults, period.

That's just not true, Trump's been conducting smear campaigns of many public figures over extremely minor rebukes.

The idea that Trump isn't aware of previous rebukes because he's self-confident and thick skinned, that's just completely counter-factual because we wouldn't be having this current situation in the first place, if that was at all true.

@RPgeek, you are aware of him lashing out at people who rightfully criticise him, right? I don't mean in an insulting way, I mean in a way that points out that something isn't true, and he also just absolutely digs in and not even let go, and not in a good way. Take the Khan family thing during the conventions, he kept going at it and that kind of thing would normally only have one response.

That's just not true, Trump's been conducting smear campaigns of many public figures over extremely minor rebukes.

The idea that Trump isn't aware of previous rebukes because he's self-confident and thick skinned, that's just completely counter-factual because we wouldn't be having this current situation in the first place, if that was at all true.

He's perfectly aware of rebukes, he just doesn't care to do what the people rebuking him want him to.

He's a counter-puncher, remember? Though there are times when you should let it go. Guy has incredibly thin skin, which is concerning when it comes to foreign relations and other stuff. He hasn't gotten into a twitter war with a foreign leader yet, but still.