If you're Jewish and you vote for Biden you hate your religion and hate Israel

[Arturo Bandini]

(03-19-2024, 02:30 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Trump spins it as a loyalty test.  Depending on how you look at it, the statement "I could shoot someone in broad daylight and you'd still love me" isn't exactly a compliment to the person you are talking to.

"I actually think they hate Israel," Trump responded to his former aide, Sebastian Gorka. "I think they hate Israel. And the Democrat Party hates Israel."


What is almost more ridiculous because Sebastian Gorka is a dude who is proudly wearing the Vitézi Rend, a Hungarian order of merit closely associated with Nazi Germany. 


It was his grandfather legacy. 

Fun fact : The US State Department lists Vitézi Rend as a Nazi-linked group, which could render members ineligible for visas. Gorka became a US citizen in 2012.


https://www.timesofisrael.com/top-trump-aide-wears-medal-of-hungarian-nazi-collaborators/

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-19-2024, 02:37 PM)pally Wrote: They support  the state of Israel...it is the actions of the Netanyahu government they have issues with

For some of them, I agree.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-19-2024, 02:38 PM)hollodero Wrote: I prefer calling out all the logs if possible, which admittedly I'm probably failing at. I do feel the inclination to defend liberals because of the grim alternative, and that sure skewes certain views, even if unintentionally.
As for antisemitism, it's not just GB. I wouldn't expect you to know who Sahra Wagenknecht is, the new German face of the far left, that has several antisemitic and racist tropes within her party program too. It deserves to be called out, but I would caution against the appearance of whataboutism. No matter how nefarious certain portions of the left act, and no matter how lacking the response might be, it is not a justification for anything.

But I don't see calling it out, consistently, regardless of the offender is in any way whataboutism.  I completely agree that the actions of one person, in this regard, do not justify the actions of another.  But the condemnation should be consistent.  Using your example, I'm willing to be she gets far less coverage or concern that AfD does, for one example.  The perception that racism is a strictly right wing issue is dangerous and it is rather prevalent.

Quote:Imho, at some point it appears like a double standard. In a family metaphor, to me it looks like scolding the one son that does some good and some bad, for each and every mistake he makes. Which probably often is justifiable on its merits. Just, at the same time, the other brother smashes the dishes, kills all the plants, tortures the cat and sets the house on fire. Ah, that's just your brother being your brother, do not distract from the dirty spot on your shirt!

Of course it's a double standard, but to deny it occurs naturally is denying reality.  Shocking behavior from one person is normal for another.  Your reaction to said behavior will always be predicated by your knowledge of that person's behavior.

Quote:I'm not unsysmpathetic to this point, I can at least see it. It's just... I know who the man is, I can not just evaluate that comment as a standalone. Eg. in the same speech, Trump praised the folks that committed violence on his behalf on January 6, called them spirited and unbelievable patriots. Imho, that adds a certain context as well, as well as a plethora of other comments from other speeches and tweets. And yeah, in my opinion him being sneaky with double-speak is one thing I will give him dubious credit for, on grounds that I see him do it all the time and it's far beyond the media misquoting him or ignoring context. I do not know for a fact that the bloodbath comment falls into this category, as stated there are many better examples, but at the very least he should have avoided the term in any case.

He's literally hyperbole in human form, he's always going to be.  To me the overreaction of the media gets him off, he enjoys making them look stupid and they seem only to happy to oblige him.  If the media reaction had been more fair, e.g. actually shown the clip in context and acknowledge that he was referring to the auto industry, but then commenting on how his history of statements makes this seem more nefarious than it otherwise would, it would have given Trump, and anyone viewing the reaction, far less room to maneuver.  Instead they had a legit meltdown.  Look at Joe Scarborough's reaction for one example.  

https://x.com/ChuckCallesto/status/1769715448839364918?s=20
https://x.com/Chuckhttps://x.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1769726464507724182?s=20Callesto/status/1769715448839364918?s=20

[hollodero]

(03-19-2024, 03:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: But I don't see calling it out, consistently, regardless of the offender is in any way whataboutism.  I completely agree that the actions of one person, in this regard, do not justify the actions of another.  But the condemnation should be consistent.

Sure, it should, and it is not in many instances. That doesn't take away much from my initial point though.

(03-19-2024, 03:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Using your example, I'm willing to be she gets far less coverage or concern that AfD does, for one example.  The perception that racism is a strictly right wing issue is dangerous and it is rather prevalent.

It certainly is not a strictly right wing issue. That being said, the AfD gets more scrutiny mainly because they are just way way worse and way more explicit. No matter if it's the US or Germany or my own sad country, in all cases I would whole-heartedly agree that the racism problem on the right is way more massive and way more dangerous still. That sure does not mean racist tropes from the left deserve to be ignored or swept under the rug by means of whataboutism, and that sure does happen. But I can still not put both sides on an equal level of scrutiny just because the media coverage is skewed.

(03-19-2024, 03:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Of course it's a double standard, but to deny it occurs naturally is denying reality.  Shocking behavior from one person is normal for another.  Your reaction to said behavior will always be predicated by your knowledge of that person's behavior.

Oh, that it's a double standard took less convincing than I thought. I wonder about the conclusion though. Yeah it's natural to a point, that doesn't mean it's to be accepted. I am not willing to just accept words from Trump's mouth as normal that would be a scandal if anyone else but him had said the same thing. And I think that is fair, to ask what if Biden had said it, you vote for me or else you hate your religion and should be ashamed. You would not let that one pass coming from him, I'd assume.

(03-19-2024, 03:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: He's literally hyperbole in human form, he's always going to be.  To me the overreaction of the media gets him off, he enjoys making them look stupid and they seem only to happy to oblige him.  If the media reaction had been more fair, e.g. actually shown the clip in context and acknowledge that he was referring to the auto industry, but then commenting on how his history of statements makes this seem more nefarious than it otherwise would, it would have given Trump, and anyone viewing the reaction, far less room to maneuver.  Instead they had a legit meltdown.  Look at Joe Scarborough's reaction for one example.  

Don' make me watch Joe... arrgh... welp, you did that now. Well, it was short enough and there's something I agree with, that "it'll be the least of it" makes it less plausible that he was strictly speaking in economic terms, just my take. But I do not deem people stupid for having another take. Generally, I don't need much convincing that MSNBC is almost exclusively an ultra-partisan assembly of manipulative hacks and that the news media in the US, on both sides, is pretty horrible, one-sided, manipulative and opinionated. Agreed, I'd have preferred if they took your suggestion, that is actually a pretty close characterization of my viewpoint. It's a sad fact that they are not inclined to be fair, they are inclined to whip their own in a constant frenzy. But imho, that is a bit of a side topic here. I don't give Trump a pass because the media covers him in an unfair manner at times.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-19-2024, 03:42 PM)hollodero Wrote: Sure, it should, and it is not in many instances. That doesn't take away much from my initial point though.

One wonders how much better things could be if it was called out whenever it occurs.  I think a fair number of people are pushed towards the extremes by this type of disparate treatment.

Quote:It certainly is not a strictly right wing issue. That being said, the AfD gets more scrutiny mainly because they are just way way worse and way more explicit. No matter if it's the US or Germany or my own sad country, in all cases I would whole-heartedly agree that the racism problem on the right is way more massive and way more dangerous still. That sure does not mean racist tropes from the left deserve to be ignored or swept under the rug by means of ignorance or whataboutism, and that sure does happen. But I can still not put both sides on an equal level of scrutiny just because the media coverage is skewed.

Here I absolutely have to preface by saying I live in a very left leaning part of the US (maybe not so left leaning for Europe?).  That said I have heard significantly more racist statements by so called liberals and progressives than I have by more right leaning people.  Maybe there's something to the power dynamic, that it emboldens people to voice opinions they would not in an environment in which they felt themselves to be in a less dominant position.  The amount of self loathing white people in this part of the country is astonishing.

Quote:Oh, that it's a double standard took less convincing than I thought. I wonder about the conclusion though. Yeah it's natural to a point, that doesn't mean it's to be accepted. I am not willing to just accept words from Trump's mouth as normal that would be a scandal if anyone else but him had said the same thing. And I think that is fair, to ask what if Biden had said it, you vote for me or else you hate your religion and should be ashamed. You would not let that one pass coming from him, I'd assume.

It didn't take convincing because it's a natural human behavior.  We become acclimated to behavior.  A similar bad action by a person with a history of bad actions will provoke far less severe of a response as that of a bad action by a person with zero history in that regard.

Quote:Don' make me watch Joe... arrgh... welp, you did that now. Well, it was short enough and there's something I agree with, that "it'll be the least of it" makes it less plausible that he was strictly speaking in economic terms, just my take. But I do not deem people stupid for having another take. Generally, I don't need much convincing that MSNBC is almost exclusively an ultra-partisan assembly of manipulative hacks and that the news media in the US, on both sides, is pretty horrible, one-sided, manipulative and opinionated. Agreed, I'd have preferred if they took your suggestion, that is actually a pretty close characterization of my viewpoint. It's a sad fact that they are not inclined to be fair, they are inclined to whip their own in a constant frenzy. But imho, that is a bit of a side topic here. I don't give Trump a pass because the media covers him in an unfair manner at times.

I don't give him a pass either.  I am just consistently mystified by how much they play into Trump's game.  You are corre4ct, whipping up their viewers is a goal, but I think it's entirely genuine with them.  Their response that is.  As I stated above, people have an innate sense of fairness.  If they perceive one party as being treated unfairly they will tend to gravitate towards/sympathize with that person.  Even if that person is not deserving of either.  The media/far left has enabled Trump as much as anyone, and judging by this thread many still have zero clue they're doing it.

[hollodero]

(03-19-2024, 04:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here I absolutely have to preface by saying I live in a very left leaning part of the US (maybe not so left leaning for Europe?).  That said I have heard significantly more racist statements by so called liberals and progressives than I have by more right leaning people.  Maybe there's something to the power dynamic, that it emboldens people to voice opinions they would not in an environment in which they felt themselves to be in a less dominant position.  The amount of self loathing white people in this part of the country is astonishing.

Naturally, I can not really speak to the California experience. As for Europe, that's a tad more complicated imho. We are way left of the US on most socioeconomic issues, regarding healthcare, education, vacation, paid maternity leave, pensions and such. However, we are, in my assessment, still pretty conservative when it comes to societal issues. Same-sex marriage is still an issue, on abortion we actually are pretty close to the latest Trump suggestion (it's unpunished within three months of pregnancy), my country still prosecutes people for marihuana possession (never got me!), we aren't all that liberal on crime either. In short, we're Bernie countries, not necessarily AOC countries though. Still, our right wing is distinctly more racist than the left wing, I dare to say that, and overall I feel the same is true for the US, at least on the federal stage.

But just so I do not misunderstand, you talk about self-loathing white people? So, whites being racist against whites? I mean nothing by that question, I would even in parts agree that there is some self-loathing that takes it too far, as are many racism accusations in general. It's just not all that clear to me what you mean.

(03-19-2024, 04:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It didn't take convincing because it's a natural human behavior.  We become acclimated to behavior.  A similar bad action by a person with a history of bad actions will provoke far less severe of a response as that of a bad action by a person with zero history in that regard.

I understand the dynamic, I just find it unwise to live by it. Actually, I feel the opposite is true, that a person with zero history actually is way more credible in any denial or withdrawal than a person that does it all the time. Specifically, I refuse to normalize Trump's many outrageous statements just because he makes them on a regular basis. It makes him more dangerous, not less.

(03-19-2024, 04:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't give him a pass either.  I am just consistently mystified by how much they play into Trump's game.  You are corre4ct, whipping up their viewers is a goal, but I think it's entirely genuine with them.  Their response that is.  As I stated above, people have an innate sense of fairness.  If they perceive one party as being treated unfairly they will tend to gravitate towards/sympathize with that person.  Even if that person is not deserving of either.  The media/far left has enabled Trump as much as anyone, and judging by this thread many still have zero clue they're doing it.

On that I can not disagree at all, even when I don't find the bloodbath example to be the most compelling one for reasons stated. There are a plethora of other examples though that make me believe you are correct on that one still. Alligators and snakes at the border that Trump allegedly wants, for example.

[Dill]

(03-19-2024, 02:38 PM)hollodero Wrote: Imho, at some point it appears like a double standard. In a family metaphor, to me it looks like scolding the one son that does some good and some bad, for each and every mistake he makes. Which probably often is justifiable on its merits.

Just, at the same time, the other brother smashes the dishes, kills all the plants, tortures the cat and sets the house on fire. Ah, that's just your brother being your brother, do not distract from the dirty spot on your shirt!

Just have to say, this analogy captures very well so much current political judgment in the U.S., and the effect of the frequent claim "both sides do it."

Biden accidentally took some documents home and then when he realized he had them, returned them, and cooperated with further investigation.

Trump deliberately took some documents home and refused to return them when asked and tried to hide them and involved
others in that obstruction of justice and still claims he did no wrong and the documents are his. 
His minions in Congress cry "same crime, double standard" when his home is raided, and it works for millions of voters.

"Trump being Trump," as when he uses his office to attack a rival for office or attempts a coup or continues to defame a rape victim,
should have long ago disqualified him as unfit for the presidency. But it has not. How does one "overreact" to such behavior?

(03-19-2024, 02:38 PM)hollodero Wrote: I'm not unsysmpathetic to this point, I can at least see it. It's just... I know who the man is, I can not just evaluate that comment as a standalone. Eg. in the same speech, Trump praised the folks that committed violence on his behalf on January 6, called them spirited and unbelievable patriots. Imho, that adds a certain context as well, as well as a plethora of other comments from other speeches and tweets. And yeah, in my opinion him being sneaky with double-speak is one thing I will give him dubious credit for, on grounds that I see him do it all the time and it's far beyond the media misquoting him or ignoring context. I do not know for a fact that the bloodbath comment falls into this category, as stated there are many better examples, but at the very least he should have avoided the term in any case.

Trump claims he will pardon the Jan 6 "political prisoners" as well, and has from the beginning condoned violence among his followers.

By the way, Biden fell all over himself apologizing for the "You ain't black comment."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/us/politics/joe-biden-black-breakfast-club.html

Trump apologized, sort of, for the Hollywood Access tape, but nothing since that I'm aware of.  So no, not "the same."

End with a question--which European news outlets or journalists are setting/modeling journalistic standards for you?

[hollodero]

(03-19-2024, 04:59 PM)Dill Wrote: Just have to say, this analogy captures very well so much current political judgment in the U.S., and the effect of the frequent claim "both sides do it."

Biden accidentally took some documents home and then when he realized he had them, returned them, and cooperated with further investigation.

Trump deliberately took some documents home and refused to return them when asked and tried to hide them and involved
others in that obstruction of justice and still claims he did no wrong and the documents are his. 
His minions in Congress cry "same crime, double standard" when his home is raided, and it works for millions of voters.

Very true, I do not need convincing on that one, and many other examples for that. However, I would warn of taking the bothsidesism accusation so far as to never critizise the left for anything on the sole basis that Trump is worse. Calling Hunter Biden completely unproblematic for Joe comes to mind, or dismissing all the concerns about his age just because Trump is almost as old and mistakes even more things, and many other issues. imho, the leftist arrogance of declaring themselves the good and righteous side and the conservative side as evil, backwards, inherently racist and whatnot - which, implicitly or explicitely, happens all the time - aided the rise of Trump quite a big deal, which I consider a huge blind spot.

(03-19-2024, 04:59 PM)Dill Wrote: Trump claims he will pardon the Jan 6 "political prisoners" as well, and has from the beginning condoned violence among his followers.

By the way, Biden fell all over himself apologizing for the "You ain't black comment."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/us/politics/joe-biden-black-breakfast-club.html

Trump apologized, sort of, for the Hollywood Access tape, but nothing since that I'm aware of.  So no, not "the same."

Yeah, that Biden did apologize for his stupid "ain't black" comment goes a long way, imho. That's fair to mention. And yeah Trump is dangerous, demonstrably is not appalled by violence on his behalf and I do have an issue with attempts at downplaying that.

(03-19-2024, 04:59 PM)Dill Wrote: End with a question--which European news outlets or journalists are setting/modeling journalistic standards for you?

Difficult. I shy away from declaring certain outlets as being some kind of gold standard, they all have their issues. Needless to say, I don't know most of them, I don't read all that much outside from the German language region. What I will say is that even the lousiest, most populistic, so-called "boulevard" magazines here, in my opinion, set higher standards than FOX or MSNBC (yes, FOX is even worse) set. For they are mostly gruesome, selling opinions as facts, doing propaganda, serving as their respective party outlets clearly representing a certain agenda. Fringes aside, we have nothing of that sort here. Since you were in Germany, you might be aware of "Bild", which is the only outlet that I would not put above said American mass media outlets in terms of journalistic integrity.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-19-2024, 04:53 PM)hollodero Wrote: Naturally, I can not really speak to the California experience. As for Europe, that's a tad more complicated imho. We are way left of the US on most socioeconomic issues, regarding healthcare, education, vacation, paid maternity leave, pensions and such. However, we are, in my assessment, still pretty conservative when it comes to societal issues. Same-sex marriage is still an issue, on abortion we actually are pretty close to the latest Trump suggestion (it's unpunished within three months of pregnancy), my country still prosecutes people for marihuana possession (never got me!), we aren't all that liberal on crime either. In short, we're Bernie countries, not necessarily AOC countries though. Still, our right wing is distinctly more racist than the left wing, I dare to say that, and overall I feel the same is true for the US, at least on the federal stage.

Thank you, I always enjoy a first hand perspective.

Quote:But just so I do not misunderstand, you talk about self-loathing white people? So, whites being racist against whites? I mean nothing by that question, I would even in parts agree that there is some self-loathing that takes it too far, as are many racism accusations in general. It's just not all that clear to me what you mean.

White people who dislike white people, or being white themselves.  The number of flagellants I've talked to over the past few years is astounding.  Having to atone for being white.  Being mad at you for not feeling sufficiently, or in my case not at all, responsible for the sins of the past that we had no hand in.  Stating that white people should be actively discriminated against, in hiring for example.  Stating that you cannot be racist towards white people (this is a huge one here).  Some of sister's friends are married to guys I literally cannot have a conversation with because the pain of biting my lip is overwhelming.

Quote:I understand the dynamic, I just find it unwise to live by it. Actually, I feel the opposite is true, that a person with zero history actually is way more credible in any denial or withdrawal than a person that does it all the time. Specifically, I refuse to normalize Trump's many outrageous statements just because he makes them on a regular basis. It makes him more dangerous, not less.

This really doesn't apply to criminal behavior or the like, but we have certain standards we hold people to.  Failing to meet high standards will usually result in more disappointment than a person we have zero expectations of meeting them.

Quote:On that I can not disagree at all, even when I don't find the bloodbath example to be the most compelling one for reasons stated. There are a plethora of other examples though that make me believe you are correct on that one still. Alligators and snakes at the border that Trump allegedly wants, for example.

It's interesting, because I have a similar opinion, just for the other side.  I'd be more inclined to be on side of the bloodbath take if there hadn't been so many hot garbage ones in the past.  

[Dill]

(03-19-2024, 05:32 PM)hollodero Wrote: Difficult. I shy away from declaring certain outlets as being some kind of gold standard, they all have their issues. Needless to say, I don't know most of them, I don't read all that much outside from the German language region. What I will say is that even the lousiest, most populistic, so-called "boulevard" magazines here, in my opinion, set higher standards than FOX or MSNBC (yes, FOX is even worse) set. For they are mostly gruesome, selling opinions as facts, doing propaganda, serving as their respective party outlets clearly representing a certain agenda. Fringes aside, we have nothing of that sort here. Since you were in Germany, you might be aware of "Bild", which is the only outlet that I would not put above said American mass media outlets in terms of journalistic integrity.

LOL I misread that first and thought you were offering BILD as an example. I remembered it as more like a German National Enquirer, full of "personal interest" stories about daughters stabbing fathers and school teachers selling drugs to students and a bad neighbor killing someone's 2 pet dogs and the like. 

I do remember the reputable papers as being descriptively denser and more thorough than US counterparts. E.g., SZ. 
Der Spiegel I thought was a peg above Time and Newsweek, with wonderful special issues on topics like Ancient Rome and Evolution.

Anyway, I asked because I have been thinking a lot lately on what journalistic standards should be, and how measured. That's all.

I find national coverage of world events can be very different; sometimes that is related to standards, sometimes to real differences in national interest.

[hollodero]

(03-19-2024, 06:20 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL I misread that first and thought you were offering BILD as an example. I remembered it as more like a German National Enquirer, full of "personal interest" stories about daughters stabbing fathers and school teachers selling drugs to students and a bad neighbor killing someone's pet dog and the like.

Yeah pretty much, plus they are extremely sexist and hate foreigners of any kind. They do not compare all that well to american outlets, I just felt like saying all of our major outlets have better standards than the american ones and then I realized this is not entirely true because of BILD.

[CJD]

I feel like he said this before the 2020 election too. Not surprising or newsworthy, if you ask me. Trump says dumb stuff all the time.

[hollodero]

(03-19-2024, 05:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: White people who dislike white people, or being white themselves.  The number of flagellants I've talked to over the past few years is astounding.  Having to atone for being white.  Being mad at you for not feeling sufficiently, or in my case not at all, responsible for the sins of the past that we had no hand in.  Stating that white people should be actively discriminated against, in hiring for example.  Stating that you cannot be racist towards white people (this is a huge one here).  Some of sister's friends are married to guys I literally cannot have a conversation with because the pain of biting my lip is overwhelming.

Alright, I only experienced actual white guilt in small slices, the occasional weird tweet and such. So I can not really say much enlightening to that, except that I do believe you. Partly based on the fact that white guilt in all its facets is not dismissed by the academic world and hence seems quite real. That being said, a small amount of white guilt, to me, doesn't seem all that inappropriate if it is constructive. Eg. Generational wealth that other races were not able to build because of the sins of the past still have certain effects in today's time and I would not deem it white guilt to address that. That the racism bat is swung around way too often, and often by whites that want to prove they are more considerate than others, that one I feel like I can attest to. It's often poisonous and destructive for sure, I'd agree with that.

(03-19-2024, 05:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This really doesn't apply to criminal behavior or the like, but we have certain standards we hold people to.  Failing to meet high standards will usually result in more disappointment than a person we have zero expectations of meeting them.

I totally get that, I still regard that as some kind of trap and would advocate to not follow that logic. Just because it is so doesn't make it wise. Eg. when it comes to Trump and letting things slide that would be a huge deal/scandal if a less depraved person said them. That is understandable, but still makes no sense.

(03-19-2024, 05:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's interesting, because I have a similar opinion, just for the other side.  I'd be more inclined to be on side of the bloodbath take if there hadn't been so many hot garbage ones in the past.  

I understand. Trump allegedly wants to nuke hurricanes, wants the city of Seoul to be moved, ordered hookers in Russia etc etc, all hearsay stories the media gleefully ran with, including the infamous ice cream scope scandal and other stories that were made up to begin with. I get it, one must not trust these assessments. However, letting everything slide because of tainted media coverage (I'm not saying you do that) does not seem all that wise either.

[CJD]

(03-19-2024, 05:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: White people who dislike white people, or being white themselves.  The number of flagellants I've talked to over the past few years is astounding.  Having to atone for being white.  Being mad at you for not feeling sufficiently, or in my case not at all, responsible for the sins of the past that we had no hand in.  Stating that white people should be actively discriminated against, in hiring for example.  Stating that you cannot be racist towards white people (this is a huge one here).  Some of sister's friends are married to guys I literally cannot have a conversation with because the pain of biting my lip is overwhelming.

The people who decided to "redefine" racism as "Prejudice + power" have been such a big thorn in the side of left, I wouldn't be surprised if they turned out to be right wing psy ops.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-19-2024, 06:39 PM)hollodero Wrote: Alright, I only experienced actual white guilt in small slices, the occasional weird tweet and such. So I can not really say much enlightening to that, except that I do believe you. Partly based on the fact that white guilt in all its facets is not dismissed by the academic world and hence seems quite real. That being said, a small amount of white guilt, to me, doesn't seem all that inappropriate if it is constructive. Eg. Generational wealth that other races were not able to build because of the sins of the past still have certain effects in today's time and I would not deem it white guilt to address that. That the racism bat is swung around way too often, and often by whites that want to prove they are more considerate than others, that one I feel like I can attest to. It's often poisonous and destructive for sure, I'd agree with that.

If a person want to make gestures to amend past wrongs I think that's great.  it's when it's done for clout or due to outside pressure that it become an issue.  But I wouldn't label that as guilt, I would label that as compassion.  I know that may seem like splitting hairs, but I believe there's a huge difference in those two motivations.

Quote:I totally get that, I still regard that as some kind of trap and would advocate to not follow that logic. Just because it is so doesn't make it wise. Eg. when it comes to Trump and letting things slide that would be a huge deal/scandal if a less depraved person said them. That is understandable, but still makes no sense.

I agree, but it's not so much as letting it go as it is expecting nothing better.  Your point stands, though.

Quote:I understand. Trump allegedly wants to nuke hurricanes, wants the city of Seoul to be moved, ordered hookers in Russia etc etc, all hearsay stories the media gleefully ran with, including the infamous ice cream scope scandal and other stories that were made up to begin with. I get it, one must not trust these assessments. However, letting everything slide because of tainted media coverage (I'm not saying you do that) does not seem all that wise either.

I'm certainly not for letting everything slide, as I said in this very thread.  But the media has really poisoned the well in this regard and needs to be on top of their game in order to not keep feeding the beast.  I think they served it up a six course meal this week. Honestly, anyone involved in the Trump business, and this would include Fani Willis, needs to be aware of that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-19-2024, 06:43 PM)CJD Wrote: The people who decided to "redefine" racism as "Prejudice + power" have been such a big thorn in the side of left, I wouldn't be surprised if they turned out to be right wing psy ops.

Hehe, you wish.  Own those people!  

I agree, they've helped set racial relations back forty plus years in this country.  

[Dill]

(03-19-2024, 06:31 PM)CJD Wrote: I feel like he said this before the 2020 election too. Not surprising or newsworthy, if you ask me. Trump says dumb stuff all the time.

And then he attempted a coup, which he has so far gotten away with.

People should have been paying closer attention to "dumb stuff" Trump was saying before the 2020 election.

And they should be paying even closer attention to the dumb stuff he is saying now, before the 2024 election.

I'm surprised when people respond to Trump as if he were just a loudmouth at some table across the restaurant,
whom they'll never hear or see again once dinner is over and they have left,
when there is a chance he will be president and able to enact his "dumb stuff" with a staff and party
purged of anyone who might be more loyal to the Constitution and rule of law. 

I'd deja vu, but haven't really seen what will happen, now that a selection process has been underway
at both state and federal level to weed out non-election deniers.

[CJD]

(03-19-2024, 07:56 PM)Dill Wrote: And then he attempted a coup, which he has so far gotten away with.

People should have been paying closer attention to "dumb stuff" Trump was saying before the 2020 election.

And they should be paying even closer attention to the dumb stuff he is saying now, before the 2024 election.

I'm surprised when people respond to Trump as if he were just a loudmouth at some table across the restaurant,
whom they'll never hear or see again once dinner is over and they have left,
when there is a chance he will be president and able to enact his "dumb stuff" with a staff and party
purged of anyone who might be more loyal to the Constitution and rule of law. 

I'd deja vu, but haven't really seen what will happen, now that a selection process has been underway
at both state and federal level to weed out non-election deniers.

If it were new dumb stuff, I'd agree. But he's a song on repeat at this point. If you haven't figured out he's bad for the country yet, no quote will convince you now.

[Dill]

(03-19-2024, 06:43 PM)CJD Wrote: The people who decided to "redefine" racism as "Prejudice + power" have been such a big thorn in the side of left, I wouldn't be surprised if they turned out to be right wing psy ops.

Just a historical note:

I trace it back to the Kerner Commission of 1967, the guys tasked by LBJ to explain what caused 150 plus riots in cities
that year, especially Detroit, where some 33 people were killed.  LBJ expected a Black Power conspiracy of some sort,
but the Commission found white racism to be the cause, embodied in control of the city's power structure and police, 
so it went beyond just individuals with different opinions, but fell far short of some BP led conspiracy.

Blacks were responding spontaneously to race-based political and economic limitations. To fix that, the limitations
had to be addressed.  Johnson rejected the findings, though.

https://policing.umhistorylabs.lsa.umich.edu/s/detroitunderfire/page/kerner-commission

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-19-2024, 08:16 PM)Dill Wrote: Just a historical note:

I trace it back to the Kerner Commission of 1967, the guys tasked by LBJ to explain what caused 150 plus riots in cities
that year, especially Detroit, where some 33 people were killed.  LBJ expected a Black Power conspiracy of some sort,
but the Commission found white racism to be the cause, embodied in control of the city's power structure and police, 
so it went beyond just individuals with different opinions, but fell far short of some BP led conspiracy.

Blacks were responding spontaneously to race-based political and economic limitations. To fix that, the limitations
had to be addressed.  Johnson rejected the findings, though.

https://policing.umhistorylabs.lsa.umich.edu/s/detroitunderfire/page/kerner-commission

Trace it back to whatever you want, it's still divisive bullshit that is dragging us backward.