Why does he refuse to condemn them?

[Dill]

(10-05-2020, 09:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Pointing out you aren't holding yourself to the same standards you demand of others is not a deflection.  Now trying to say it is, that is a deflection.  BTW, it's not a "win" for me, it's a "win" for bfine.

I.e. he was right and you were very wrong.

Ahh, it still meets the fractional threshold for you to declare white supremacist eugenics.  What percentage would the state have to be non-white for that to no longer apply?

Because you were totally wrong and didn't demand the same accuracy of yourself that you do of others.  Huge "L".  Take it, you've earned it.

What I "demand" of others is that they strive to support points they make, make them about issues instead of forum members, and explain or refine them in good faith if the support is challenged.

That, as opposed to baseless accusation and quippery. We've disagreed about that standard, among others, many times. 

So a data error made in good faith doesn't imply some double standard. It's just an error. If the debate were about/depended on the exact percentage of whites in Minnesota today then I would be "totally wrong."  And you could finally enjoy a big L. This is just a little one, though it sounds like you needed it.

But the debate was over what to make of Trump's recourse to racehorse genetics while addressing a white audience in a predominantly white state with the highest percentage of Scandinavians in the US. Bfine maintains Fred, Hollo and I are "twisting" Trump's words to see a white supremacist trope--as if Trump could have easily floated the same compliment to an mostly white audience in Mississippi. As if all states have good genes, like all countries do. Plus Fred said "we" instead of "you" as Trump did, an error which could matter only if we thought Trump did NOT presume he already had those good genes too and was recognizing "his people." Do "we" yhink that? I don't.

"Throwaway compliments" referencing the racehorse analogy to human genetics don't just spontaneously pop into anyone's mind any more than would referencing the transubstantiation of the host. A person already has to know the theory and think in its terms. That's why such comments can be spontaneous, and why people familiar with Nazism can be disturbed without "ascribing motives" or "deep thought" to Trump, given the the Trump family history and the history of that analogy.  If the reference was not a one-off, but another point in a larger pattern of eugenics referneces, then the only real question there can be here is whether Trump could know or care whether the racehorse theory of eugenics had any connection to white supremacy. Could it have been just "a theory about horses and people" that the Trump family shaped into their own family tradition, no conscious connection to more nefarious movements, certainly not to race? 

Trump’s touting of ‘racehorse theory’ tied to eugenics and Nazis alarms Jewish leaders
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-10-05/trump-debate-white-supremacy-racehorse-theory

"You can absolutely be taught things. Absolutely. You can get a lot better. But there is something. You know, the racehorse theory, there is something to the genes,” Trump told Larry King on CNN in 2007. “And I mean, when I say something, I mean a lot.”

Three years later, he told CNN that his father was successful and it naturally followed that he would be too: “I have a certain gene. I’m a gene believer. Hey, when you connect two racehorses, you usually end up with a fast horse. And I really was — you know, I had a — a good gene pool from the standpoint of that. 

He used the phrase again at a 2016 campaign rally in Iowa, and his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., told his father’s biographer that the family believed in the theory.