Why does he refuse to condemn them?

[GMDino]

(10-07-2020, 10:22 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Trump said Minnesotans have good genes. To claim it meant anything else is twisting his words. You're claiming he means all non-Somali Minnesotans have good genes, that's the very definition of twisting his words. 

Now, if you want to use his other speeches to claim that he doesn't actually believe that ALL Minnesotans have good genes, go ahead. But, to claim that when he said "Minnesotans have good genes" he's saying something other than "Minnesotans have good genes" you are twisting his words.

Isn't that the issue though?  One speech does not happen in a vacuum.  Maybe Trump meant EXACTLY what he said when he said it but when taken with other things he has said an inference can be made.  People can call that "Twisting" but I'd more akin it to adding substance and perspective to the words he said.

If a national leader gave speech after speech about the "bad" people in a country.  Blamed all the problems on one group, said they were doing bad things and should be forced to leave but then gave a speech to supporters saying "we have a wonderful country filled with good people like you" we would know he meant the people in front of him were good but not the ones he was talking about before.

[hollodero]

(10-07-2020, 09:58 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Not really. Trump is saying Minnesotans have good genes because they're parents have good genes. Anything beyond that is potentially making Trump say something he didn't say or mean.

It's about selective breeding and is a deeply tainted term, that is about eugenics and genetic purity. I'm not trying to convince you of that, but you can't convince me that Trump definitely meant nothing nefarious and that every other take but the most innocent one (he didn't know about the term's history or meaning and just made it up on the fly because he wanted to be nice) is word twisting. Calling the racehorse theory a dark, racially tainted term is not word twisting, it just describes reality.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-07-2020, 10:27 AM)GMDino Wrote: Isn't that the issue though?  One speech does not happen in a vacuum.  Maybe Trump meant EXACTLY what he said when he said it but when taken with other things he has said an inference can be made.  People can call that "Twisting" but I'd more akin it to adding substance and perspective to the words he said.

It depends on what people claim about the speech. If people said that "Trump said Minnesotans have good genes but based on his previous speeches, he's either lying or dumb or etc. etc. etc." that's not the same as saying "Trump thinks white people are genetically superior" based on the same quote.

(10-07-2020, 10:27 AM)GMDino Wrote: If a national leader gave speech after speech about the "bad" people in a country.  Blamed all the problems on one group, said they were doing bad things and should be forced to leave but then gave a speech to supporters saying "we have a wonderful country filled with good people like you" we would know he meant the people in front of him were good but not the ones he was talking about before.

That's not what's happening here, though. People originally claimed that Trump is openly saying white people are genetically superior because of his Minnesotans have good genes comment. That's twisting his words to the nth degree.

Look at this thread topic. Trump has routinely denounced white supremacy. I saw a video yesterday where it showed 19 (19!) times Trump has denounced white supremacy in the last 4 years. Yet, look at the thread title. And, again, saying he doesn't MEAN it is different than saying he hasn't DONE it.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-07-2020, 10:31 AM)hollodero Wrote: It's about selective breeding and is a deeply tainted term, that is about eugenics and genetic purity. I'm not trying to convince you of that, but you can't convince me that Trump definitely meant nothing nefarious and that every other take but the most innocent one (he didn't know about the term's history or meaning and just made it up on the fly because he wanted to be nice) is word twisting. Calling the racehorse theory a dark, racially tainted term is not word twisting, it just describes reality.

This is Trump we're talking about. I don't view him as a particularly intelligent individual capable of giving nuanced comments, let alone nuanced thoughts. Trump literally was quoted in an interview saying that he's a good business man because his dad was a good business man as an example of racehorse theory. 

In any event, I don't know how you can look at his comments and think he's saying anything other than 'You guys are a good looking crowd" unless you have an agenda and the truth is not a part of that agenda.

[Dill]

(10-07-2020, 10:22 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Trump said Minnesotans have good genes. To claim it meant anything else is twisting his words. You're claiming he means all non-Somali Minnesotans have good genes, that's the very definition of twisting his words. 

Now, if you want to use his other speeches to claim that he doesn't actually believe that ALL Minnesotans have good genes, go ahead. But, to claim that when he said "Minnesotans have good genes" he's saying something other than "Minnesotans have good genes" you are twisting his words.

Whoa Philhos, slow down.

I'm not claiming he is saying something other than "Minnesotans have good genes" when he says "Minnesotans have good genes."

I am claiming there is no reason to suppose he means African refugees/immigrants/citizens in Minnesota when he says "Minnesotans." 

You simply ASSUME that he means what you would mean--all PEOPLE in Minnesota--including African immigrants.

But to get there you have to do what you so far have not--explain WHY, in this speech (not another) casting African refugees, including citizens, as people who don't belong in Minnesota, we are to assume them included in a later reference to "people of Minnesota."

Their ancestors weren't the farmers and fishermen who gave today's Minnesotans their genes, were they?

An additional point about genes: you can't have good genes without implying there are bad ones any more than you could claim that all high school students in the US have above average grades. Some people have to have not-so-good genes somewhere. Or could all states have above-average genes? Fred is quite right to see the implication of "superior" genes in Trump's compliment to "all" Minnesotans.

[hollodero]

(10-07-2020, 10:39 AM)PhilHos Wrote: This is Trump we're talking about. I don't view him as a particularly intelligent individual capable of giving nuanced comments, let alone nuanced thoughts. Trump literally was quoted in an interview saying that he's a good business man because his dad was a good business man as an example of racehorse theory. 

In any event, I don't know how you can look at his comments and think he's saying anything other than 'You guys are a good looking crowd" unless you have an agenda and the truth is not a part of that agenda.

Maybe you're right and he just blurted out something without having a broader point in mind. I can not quite prove the opposite. I have to say though, yeah it's Trump we're talking about and the number of occasions where he used language and terms like these is long. And as SSF already said, benefit of the doubt is something that wears off and you only can get it so often.

This is the same man that suggested dipping buillets in swine blood and shooting muslims, letting one go to tell his folks, was a marvellous idea worth studying. He told women of color to go back where they came from. He finds ways to express his thoughts that make white supremacist groups believe he is their ally. He allegedly calls african countries shitholes and would prefer immigrants from Norway. He allegedly once said that laziness is a trait in blacks (he himself said that this was probably true). He propagated the birther theory. He once highlighted a black supporter of his with the words "Look at my african american. Look at him!". He retweets "Britain First" and Dutch right-wing extremists. Cohen testified that Trump asked if there's any country run by a black person that wasn't a shithole. He tried to scare suburbans with Cory Booker possibly being responsible for suburban housing. He falsely claimed that 81% of white murder victims are murdered by blacks. He keeps blaming this central park 5... --- there just is a lot, and after there being a lot I find it hard to find a perfectly innocent explanation for his choice of words and deeds on each and every single instance. Imho, the if it quacks like a duck line comes into play here.

But hey, maybe you're right on this particular Minnesota incident. Can't definitely say you're not. I disagree that your way is the only rational way to look at this though.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-07-2020, 10:55 AM)Dill Wrote: Whoa Philhos, slow down.

I'm not claiming he is saying something other than "Minnesotans have good genes" when he says "Minnesotans have good genes."

I am claiming there is no reason to suppose he means African refugees/immigrants/citizens in Minnesota when he says "Minnesotans." 

You simply ASSUME that he means what you would mean--all PEOPLE in Minnesota--including African immigrants.

But to get there you have to do what you so far have not--explain WHY, in this speech (not another) casting African refugees, including citizens, as people who don't belong in Minnesota, we are to assume them included in a later reference to "people of Minnesota."

No, to get there all I have to do is take his words at face value and in context. He mentions no group like Somalians, Africans, blacks, non-whites. And says Minnesotans have good genes. He doesn't limit it to only white Minnesotans or American-born Minnesotans. He just says Minnesotans. To claim he's only speaking to 'whites' is to twist his words.

Now, if you want to argue he doesn't believe it based on previous speeches, go ahead. But to say that when Trump said "Minnesotans have good genes" he really meant "white Minnesotans" is to twist his words.

[fredtoast]

(10-07-2020, 11:24 AM)PhilHos Wrote: No, to get there all I have to do is take his words at face value and in context. He mentions no group like Somalians, Africans, blacks, non-whites. And says Minnesotans have good genes. He doesn't limit it to only white Minnesotans or American-born Minnesotans. He just says Minnesotans. To claim he's only speaking to 'whites' is to twist his words.

And this is what I mean by "mental gymnastics". In order to interpret Trumps claims the way you do you have to pretend something that does not exist.. There is no gene just for people who live in Minnesota .

The fact that Trump used the racist dog whistle "racehorse theory" proves that Trump knows genes are controlled by breeding instead of location. So now you have to pretend he never said that either.

It does not matter how many times Trump says he denounces white supremacy when he keeps making clearly racist. statements. It is like saying "I support the feminist movement but I think it is okay for a husband to slap his wife around a little when she does not obey." Would you say that comment is fine just because he said he supports the feminist movement?

[*PhilHos*]

(10-07-2020, 12:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And this is what I mean by "mental gymnastics". In order to interpret Trumps claims the way you do you have to pretend something that does not exist.. There is no gene just for people who live in Minnesota .

No, mental gymnastics is taking a comment where Trump is clearly saying the audience looks good and claiming he's openly saying white people are superior. 

(10-07-2020, 12:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It does not matter how many times Trump says he denounces white supremacy when he keeps making clearly racist. statements. It is like saying "I support the feminist movement but I think it is okay for a husband to slap his wife around a little when she does not obey." Would you say that comment is fine just because he said he supports the feminist movement?

Like I said, saying he doesn't mean it when he denounces white supremacy is not the same as saying he's never denounced it. 

[Dill]

(10-07-2020, 11:24 AM)PhilHos Wrote: No, to get there all I have to do is take his words at face value and in context. He mentions no group like Somalians, Africans, blacks, non-whites. And says Minnesotans have good genes. He doesn't limit it to only white Minnesotans or American-born Minnesotans. He just says Minnesotans. To claim he's only speaking to 'whites' is to twist his words.

Now, if you want to argue he doesn't believe it based on previous speeches, go ahead. But to say that when Trump said "Minnesotans have good genes" he really meant "white Minnesotans" is to twist his words.

Not "previous speeches." In the genes speech we are discussing. he spends more time disparaging Somalis--all Africans in Minnesota--than he does praising genes of "the people of Minnesota."

To get where you are going, you have to ignore context, and Trump's ideology.

Imagine two people are reading Mein Kampf and happen upon a passage in which Hitler praises "the German people."

Which person would be "twisting" Hitler's words--the one who says he doesn't mean Jews or the one who says "to take his words at face value he means 'all Germans' which includes German Jews too!"?

PS appreciate the rational responses. We can talk about this stuff without getting all crazy.

[samhain]

(10-05-2020, 01:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Didn't you hear? Violence by white supremacists ended three weeks ago.



And aren't you shocked that SSF never heard a thing about it.

Meanwhile, we get the latests and greatest about some college professor lighting a firecracker in downtown Portland in real time.  

[*PhilHos*]

I mentioned this video earlier. Here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZekCxN_8KPA&feature=emb_logo

19 times in the last 4 years (well, the first one is 20 years ago and fred mentioned it to me in a discussion we had where he acknowledged David Duke was a racist) Trump has denounced white supremacy.

[fredtoast]

(10-08-2020, 03:55 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I mentioned this video earlier. Here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZekCxN_8KPA&feature=emb_logo

19 times in the last 4 years (well, the first one is 20 years ago and fred mentioned it to me in a discussion we had where he acknowledged David Duke was a racist) Trump has denounced white supremacy.

Lets go back to the example I used before.

What if President Trump said "I support the feminist movement but I think it is okay for a husband to smack his wife around a little if she does not obey him"?

Would you praise Trump for supporting the feminist movement?

What if he said it 19 times?  Would that make a difference?

[fredtoast]

(10-07-2020, 02:04 PM)Dill Wrote: Imagine two people are reading Mein Kampf and happen upon a passage in which Hitler praises "the German people."

Which person would be "twisting" Hitler's words--the one who says he doesn't mean Jews or the one who says "to take his words at face value he means 'all Germans' which includes German Jews too!"?

Rep.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-07-2020, 02:04 PM)Dill Wrote: Imagine two people are reading Mein Kampf and happen upon a passage in which Hitler praises "the German people."

Ahhh, a Hitler comparison, who would have thunk it.  

[Dill]

(10-08-2020, 06:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ahhh, a Hitler comparison, who would have thunk it.  

Here is your chance for a serious response: What are the terms of the comparison? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-08-2020, 07:29 PM)Dill Wrote: Here is your chance for a serious response: What are the terms of the comparison? 

I largely give serious responses, just not when the question isn't serious.  In your case I am happy to reply as requested in the hopes that you follow suit.  First off, my disdain for Nazi and Hitler comparisons is well known.  They are so loaded that they automatically terminate any serious dialogue.  By choosing to make a direct comparison to Hitler you are indulging in this behavior.  Of course no one with any knowledge of Hitler, with the benefit of nearly 100 years of hindsight and analysis, would read anything into his comments on this topic as anything other than what it was.  Even back then Hitler made his intentions largely known.  Contrast that with Trump.  Is Trump definitively stating that Scandinavian Caucasians have superior genes?  Is Trump even definitively saying that white Minnesotans have superior genes?  If so superior to what?  

He's addressing a crowd.  He stated people in Minnesota have good genes.  He did not exclude any groups living in Minnesota from that statement.  He did not precede his statement with a chapters long diatribe about the superiority of the "Aryan" race compared to the "subhuman" Jew or "insert ethnic minority here".  So while you, and rational others such as Hollodero, can find his comments disturbing and flirting, at best, with the concept of eugenics, a direct comparison to Hitler's statements in Mein Kampf is wholly inappropriate because of what Trump did said, but far more so because of what he did not.  So, insanely inflammatory comparisons to Nazis and Hitler aside, the direct comparison doesn't even withstand scrutiny without those loaded comparison.

Quite simply, and I honestly ask that you not give me a two page answer to this because I find them ponderous (no insult here, I'm being honest), comparisons to Hitler or the Nazis will almost always be met with disdain on my part because of what they represent and how insanely prejudicial they are.

[Dill]

(10-08-2020, 08:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I largely give serious responses, just not when the question isn't serious.  In your case I am happy to reply as requested in the hopes that you follow suit.  First off, my disdain for Nazi and Hitler comparisons is well known.  They are so loaded that they automatically terminate any serious dialogue.  By choosing to make a direct comparison to Hitler you are indulging in this behavior.  Of course no one with any knowledge of Hitler, with the benefit of nearly 100 years of hindsight and analysis, would read anything into his comments on this topic as anything other than what it was.  Even back then Hitler made his intentions largely known.  Contrast that with Trump.  Is Trump definitively stating that Scandinavian Caucasians have superior genes?  Is Trump even definitively saying that white Minnesotans have superior genes?  If so superior to what?  

He's addressing a crowd.  He stated people in Minnesota have good genes.  He did not exclude any groups living in Minnesota from that statement.  He did not precede his statement with a chapters long diatribe about the superiority of the "Aryan" race compared to the "subhuman" Jew or "insert ethnic minority here".  So while you, and rational others such as Hollodero, can find his comments disturbing and flirting, at best, with the concept of eugenics, a direct comparison to Hitler's statements in Mein Kampf is wholly inappropriate because of what Trump did said, but far more so because of what he did not.  So, insanely inflammatory comparisons to Nazis and Hitler aside, the direct comparison doesn't even withstand scrutiny without those loaded comparison.

Quite simply, and I honestly ask that you not give me a two page answer to this because I find them ponderous (no insult here, I'm being honest), comparisons to Hitler or the Nazis will almost always be met with disdain on my part because of what they represent and how insanely prejudicial they are.

Guess I should add one more question to help shorten the answer.  What was the point of the comparison? As in, what was it trying to prove? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-08-2020, 08:06 PM)Dill Wrote: Guess I should add one more question to help shorten the answer.  What was the point of the comparison? As in, what was it trying to prove? 

Annnnnnnnddddddd were done. 

So much for expecting a serious reply.

[Dill]

(10-08-2020, 08:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Annnnnnnnddddddd were done. 

So much for expecting a serious reply.

Lol you haven't had a "reply" yet.

I asked a further question because, frankly, you didn't appear to get the point of the comparison.                                                                       (That's what I assume when I see a series of off point or easily answerable objections.) 

You probably explained why you didn't/couldn't get it, though: 

for you Hitler comparisons are "loaded" and "automatically terminate serious dialogue" and the like.

The follow up question, which you could not answer, was the final trigger.

Projecting "all that's wrong with Hitler comparisons" onto my little analogy like a Rorschach blot, 

followed by "we're done" at the first prompt for clarification--that's not the method of someone who gives "serious responses."