Why does he refuse to condemn them?

[Dill]

(10-09-2020, 08:53 PM)hollodero Wrote: The latter post did occur pretty much as stated, albeit some time ago. Regarding the former, there was a deleted post in this thread that of course I shall not repost verbatim, but believe me it was pretty unambiguous.

I have a different take than SSF on many things. On this, I don't. What he addresses has nothing to do with good or bad discussion style, but with inacceptable discussion style. And there are quite a few examples of that.

I don't want to put you in the wrong over those two instances, for you probably were not aware of those. But in general I share the observation that there is less willingness to call out people/posts from people from the perceived "own side". Which sure applies to both sides. Both sides imho have blind spots regarding their own behaviour, and the tone of their posts (from oneself or others), while they willingly see the same fault at others from the other side.

How fatal it is that there's always the split in two sides is tragic in its own way, but that seems to be the way it is.

Thanks for your views on this Hollo.

I did not see either of these posts. No idea whom they came from (no need to know). I drop in and out of these threads. There are few I follow from beginning to end. So I have missed this history, and how it might color what happened above.

I'm sure I don't have blind spots, but I get what you're saying about others 

I do want to go record, though, as someone who wants to raise, not lower, the level of our dialogue. That's not a matter of sides. 

I believe I have sided with "the other side" a couple of times when either I agreed with Bfine or thought he was unfairly ganged.
And I do befriend and include "the other side" as fellow forum colleagues, when they'll have me. I want to see people contributing, posting links and views I otherwise wouldn't see, and working more deeply into issues, not attacking them for their views or pushing them out of threads.

I'll work with anyone to make the environment here more welcoming.

[BmorePat87]

speaking of racism, someone confronted the Second Lady of PA this weekend while she was grocery shopping and called her the N word. The 2nd lady, who is Latina and came here undocumented as a child, recorded it and posted it online.

[GMDino]

(10-12-2020, 11:45 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: speaking of racism, someone confronted the Second Lady of PA this weekend while she was grocery shopping and called her the N word. The 2nd lady, who is Latina and came here undocumented as a child, recorded it and posted it online.

And from what I heard on the radio she was very gracious with her post saying something along the lines of "Hate is learned.  If you know this woman teach her how to love."

[*PhilHos*]

(10-09-2020, 02:17 PM)Dill Wrote: Well I said "Hitler" while we were talking about Trump, but I didn't jump straight to a "Hitler comparison"--

if by that you mean some direct comparison of Hitler's statements with Trump's.  There is no such comparison at all. I find that Hitler references are about as incapacitating as people want them to be, so do me the favor of hearing me out.

I also used Jefferson as an example, and the point of that was not to compare his views of slavery or equality to Trump's. etc.

The defense of Trump so far on this thread and others is based on a dubious linguistic analysis--what Trump means when he says "people of Minnesota" is just plain and unqualified English meaning all ***** sapiens residing within the territorial boundaries of that state, not just "all white people" or "all non-Africans." And that must be so because he says nothing about non-whites IN THAT ONE PASSAGE and no one can prove what was in his mind at the time. To assert otherwise is to "twist what Trump 'actually' says." 

But that analysis requires me to believe that after all the nasty things Trump said about African-Minnesotans throughout that speech up to that point, he suddenly, warmly, accepted them in that moment as "people of Minnesota," and so also as the bearers of "good genes," not so different from Trump himself. It also requires me to think that he was not referencing "the racehorse theory" outside its conventional eugenic import in this one instance.  (I believe my view on this is stronger than Hollo's; It's a stretch to suppose Trump's meaning now "ambiguous"; there are no special grounds for caution in this one instance.)

Since I'm unwilling to believe that Trump changed his views of Minnesotan Africans for just that one moment, and then returned to form later, I challenged the assumption upon which the "plain English" argument seems to rest--namely that the words and sentences mean what they mean independently of surrounding context, independently of the whole speech, as if in that moment, for that moment only, Trump meant exactly what Philhos or Bfine or Mickey would have meant, had they used those words in one of their posts. Because the meaning is just there in the words. 

Best way to challenge that assumption is by analogy to other texts for which my fellow forum members would likely agree that the "plain meaning" is not the plain meaning. Probably could have used a Biblical example as well, but I think Mein Kampf  works best.

If, in a passage from Mein Kampf  , Hitler claims the "the German people" are superior to others, not because they are the smartest people, but because they are the most ready to sacrifice for the nation, no one of my forum friends would agree if I claimed that in that passage, Hitler meant all German-speaking people living and working there as citizens because he does not add "except the Jews" in that moment. They would disagree (I hope) because Hitler had previously argued that Jews were not true Germans, but a stateless parasitic race, etc. From that point forward they are not included in any reference to "the German people."

In so doing, my friends would be granting that the meaning of one statement in a text can be delimited by things said before and after it. So one cannot just extract it from that text and say "Now it means what it would mean in any other context." And my friends would have to grant that this is a GENERAL PRINCIPLE, not limited only to Hitler's text. And not limited to texts with racist views, or views we don't like.  Same for Jefferson's use of "man" and "equality" in a text most of us like, written by a man most of us admire. 

At this point, in a rational discussion, the onus should be on Trump defenders to explain why and how Trump's speech should be excepted from this general principal. If none of us can know what is in Trump's mind, then what ground for a claim that he is suddenly all-inclusive in his definition of Minnesotans and praise for their genes? Why is THAT not "twisting"?  Could someone refute the general principle I just described via another example? If someone couldn't shake the feeling there was somehow an unfair comparison of Hitler's views to Trump's lurking somewhere in my example, he could ask for a different analogy, perhaps from the Bible, which I'd be happy to supply. My point is to refute the "proof-texting" fundamentalist approach to Trump statements, which isolates those his defenders like from those they don't.

I am assuming that rational discussion is the goal here, and not just partisan attack, defense and obfuscation, which requires far fewer words.

I'll be honest, I didn't read any of this.

Look, it should be clear that when Trump told the crowd they had good genes, he was literally just telling them they were a good looking crowd. Now, YOU may think Trump is very intellectual and such a deep thinker, that he's capable of making a comment that to the average person is him just telling a crowd they look good but in actuality he's subtly saying "white people are better" but I don't like to give Trump more credit than he deserves. 

[*PhilHos*]

(10-09-2020, 04:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So why should we give a shit when he says something that he obviously does not mean?

Because it's not about Trump it's about YOU. You want to argue that he doesn't mean something he said? Fine, but that's a different argument. However, just because you don't believe him when Trump says something doesn't give you the right to just say he didn't say it.

(10-09-2020, 04:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You keep frothing at the mouth about how often he says he condemns white supremacy, but apparently you don't care if he is telling the truth or not.  That is a ridiculous position if you ask me.  I would never praise a person for making comments when I can tell they are lying.

Not true at all. The problem is that you guys make so much shit up about Trump that I spend my time just correcting you that I don't have much time to express my distaste for his lying.


Not to mention that you "froth at the mouth" about Trump's lies and the shit you make up about him that you seemingly don't care about Biden's lies. So why should I care about Trump's lies if you don't care about Biden's lies?

(10-09-2020, 04:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is clear that he has said the words that he condemns white supremacy.  I will give you that.  

Good for you. Too bad you're not most of the media who keep spouting that Trump refuses to condemn it.

(10-09-2020, 04:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The difference between the two of us is that I actually care if he is telling the truth.  

But only Trump. Biden can lie his way to the White House that's fine, but if Trump lies, there's hell to pay. 

The fact is I care when ANY politician lies. You only care when it's a conservative or someone claiming to be conservative. In addition, I don't make shit up about them, either.

(10-09-2020, 04:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote:  A total disregard for the truth.

The only disregarding the truth are those that make shit up about Trump.

[fredtoast]

(10-12-2020, 02:11 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Not to mention that you "froth at the mouth" about Trump's lies and the shit you make up about him that you seemingly don't care about Biden's lies. So why should I care about Trump's lies if you don't care about Biden's lies?

What lies?

I care about any lies Biden may have told that will effect the type of policy he would support as President.

So which ones should I be concerned about?

[fredtoast]

(10-12-2020, 02:11 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Not true at all. The problem is that you guys make so much shit up about Trump that I spend my time just correcting you that I don't have much time to express my distaste for his lying.

 
I don't make stuff up about Trump, and you have no corrected me about anything.

You just spent days trying to argue that "so different" means "same".    Is that what you consider a "correction"?

[*PhilHos*]

(10-12-2020, 03:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't make stuff up about Trump, 

So you didn't say:

(10-05-2020, 06:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: For example last week he told a group of his supporters that "We have superior genes".

Huh. Could've fooled me.

(10-12-2020, 03:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You just spent days trying to argue that "so different" means "same". 

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh, that was you chief. I was arguing "not so different" means "not exactly the same". You were the one claiming "not so different" means "exactly the same". 

[Dill]

(10-12-2020, 01:43 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I'll be honest, I didn't read any of this.

Look, it should be clear that when Trump told the crowd they had good genes, he was literally just telling them they were a good looking crowd. Now, YOU may think Trump is very intellectual and such a deep thinker, that he's capable of making a comment that to the average person is him just telling a crowd they look good but in actuality he's subtly saying "white people are better" but I don't like to give Trump more credit than he deserves. 

Well, I appreciate your honesty, but dismissing a counter argument without reading it is not only bad form. It signals intent to hold a position right or wrong, without considering the validity of arguments against it. 

Why assume one has to be a "deep thinker" to believe that white people have superior genes--and then tell them so, either spontaneously or after deliberation? Quite the opposite in fact. Racism does not require deep thought. But it does require belief that one "race" has "good genes" and others not so good. In a politician it only requires the minimal foresight not to mention "race" while saying saying so.  

The issue here was whom Trump included in his reference to "people of Minnesota." No Trump defender has yet explained why that term should include African Minnesotans, after Trump spent an hour defining them as "others" who don't belong in the US, much less Minnesota. 

Trump defenders argue as if Trump framing the audience as of good (white) genes requires some special extra mental act over and above his ordinary views of people. No reason to suppose that, if the assumption of white superiority is his "normal."  

[*PhilHos*]

(10-12-2020, 04:14 PM)Dill Wrote: Well, I appreciate your honesty, but dismissing a counter argument without reading it is not only bad form. It signals intent to hold a position right or wrong, without considering the validity of arguments against it. 

You're entitled to your opinion, but my main reason for ignoring your response is that I believe your lengthy post is intentionally verbose so as to obfuscate the argument. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-12-2020, 04:14 PM)Dill Wrote:
Well, I appreciate your honesty, but dismissing a counter argument without reading it is not only bad form. It signals intent to hold a position right or wrong, without considering the validity of arguments against it. 

Why assume one has to be a "deep thinker" to believe that white people have superior genes--and then tell them so, either spontaneously or after deliberation? Quite the opposite in fact. Racism does not require deep thought. But it does require belief that one "race" has "good genes" and others not so good. In a politician it only requires the minimal foresight not to mention "race" while saying saying so.  

The issue here was whom Trump included in his reference to "people of Minnesota." No Trump defender has yet explained why that term should include African Minnesotans, after Trump spent an hour defining them as "others" who don't belong in the US, much less Minnesota. 

Trump defenders argue as if Trump framing the audience as of good (white) genes requires some special extra mental act over and above his ordinary views of people. No reason to suppose that, if the assumption of white superiority is his "normal."  

He told a state that is 20% other that White non-Hispanic that they has good genes. He did that to garner votes from EVERY citizen in the state, not just the white ones. Any further analysis is just tin foil hat territory

[GMDino]

(10-12-2020, 04:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He told a state that is 20% other that White non-Hispanic that they has good genes. He did that to garner votes from EVERY citizen in the state, not just the white ones. Any further analysis is just tin foil hat territory

Whoa!  Finally someone knows what Trump meant vs what he said! 

Side note though: Trump relies much more heavily on winning the white vote than the minorities.

[GMDino]

More than once in this thread it has been proposed that Trump is not a "deep thinker".  Why that isn't reason enough to not vote for him to be President is beyond me

[*PhilHos*]

(10-12-2020, 04:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: More than once in this thread it has been proposed that Trump is not a "deep thinker".  Why that isn't reason enough to not vote for him to be President is beyond me

I don't believe Biden is a deep thinker either. I believe he generally thinks before he speaks WAY MORE than Trump does, but I wouldn't qualify him as a deep thinker either. 

[GMDino]

(10-12-2020, 04:45 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I don't believe Biden is a deep thinker either. I believe he generally thinks before he speaks WAY MORE than Trump does, but I wouldn't qualify him as a deep thinker either. 

On one had a guy who thinks before he speaks, on the on the a guy who isn't a "deep thinker" at all and just pouts nonsense.  

Whew.  Tough call.  

I'll repeat then:  "Why that isn't reason enough to not vote for him to be President is beyond me."

[*PhilHos*]

(10-12-2020, 04:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: On one had a guy who thinks before he speaks, on the on the a guy who isn't a "deep thinker" at all and just pouts nonsense.  

Whew.  Tough call.  

I'll repeat then:  "Why that isn't reason enough to not vote for him to be President is beyond me."

Because there's more to being a president than just how good a communicator they are.

[Dill]

(10-12-2020, 04:20 PM)PhilHos Wrote: You're entitled to your opinion, but my main reason for ignoring your response is that I believe your lengthy post is intentionally verbose so as to obfuscate the argument. 

I don't think you disagree with my "opinion" here. If you did you'd agree that someone who just wants to hold a conclusion as "true" should avoid/dismiss arguments that may refute that conclusion.

In any case, I don't see any special reason to suppose a post "intentionally verbose" to obfuscate the argument because it is longer than usual.  Why shouldn't that indicate the poster is taking more care NOT to be misunderstood--the opposite of obfuscate?  We see plenty of "intentional obfuscation in short posts, right? 

You could think of my long post as two different ones that just happened to get collected together into an extended argument.

The first one, supported by explanation, argues that your defense of Trump is based upon a faulty linguistic analysis, separating words from the larger context--in this case a speech.

The second (starts with "best way") offers an extended example by unpacking the Mein Kampf analogy. But if you don't like the word "Hitler," you could substitute the Declaration of independence. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-12-2020, 04:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: Whoa!  Finally someone knows what Trump meant vs what he said! 

Side note though:  Trump relies much more heavily on winning the white vote than the minorities.

It is what he said. I'm not the one trying at attach a covert meaning to it. Are you sure you meant to quote me?

[fredtoast]

(10-12-2020, 04:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He told a state that is 20% other that White non-Hispanic that they has good genes. He did that to garner votes from EVERY citizen in the state, not just the white ones. Any further analysis is just tin foil hat territory

Only problem with that theory is that you have to pretend that there is a "Minnesota gene" that people of all races from MInnesota have and no one inb other states have.

You have to play make believe to defend Trump.

Why not face reality and look at the crowd he was talking to.  At least 99% white.

Too bad Trump can't govern in the make believe world where his fans live.

REALITY IS A *****.

[fredtoast]

(10-12-2020, 04:04 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Uhhhhhhhhhhhh, that was you chief. I was arguing "not so different" means "not exactly the same". You were the one claiming "not so different" means "exactly the same". 

100% BULLSHIT.

I never used the term "exactly the same".  You were the one who made that up.  All I ever said was that Trump was including himself in the "good gene" pool by saying he was the same (never "exactly the same") as the white crowd he was talking to.