Racism is clearled defined as discrimination based on the belief of the superiority of one race over another. It is unscientific, impractical, prejudicial and unfair. Biogtry is characterised by intolerance but to tolerate the intolerable is equally immoral as being intolerant towards that which should be accepted. So it becomes a matter of perspective over whether tolerance is good or not in that context. That's why calling leftists bigots isn't even necessarily an insult, because they are proud to be intolerant of what and who they find intolerable, change must be demanded. It's just that the word bigot has negative associations and will only be used to insult.

Also, when I said that I'm against simplistic, overarching characterisations, I am but if I described the same thing as I do with biogtry but with nicer words, it would just describe the views of leftists. If being on a political extreme wasn't like that, it wouldn't be called a political extreme. You did ignore most of my post just to sneer at a percieved contradiction, whatever the reason is, I'll end this conversation with you here.

You did ignore most of my post just to sneer at a percieved contradiction, whatever the reason is... — Judaka

The reason is, like this post of yours that I respond to now, I found it largely incoherent. Let’s say that’s my failing and end as friends.

The blacks...

The women...

The Jews...

The Dems...

The Republicans...

The left...

The right...

Americans...

Trump voters...

All those share the same problem.

Like which kind of policies? Ones that lead to greater wealth disparity? — frank

Didn't really want to go into the past thirty years of border policy. You lost me on the wealth disparity question. What I'm talking about is that the Dems talk compassion, support sanctuary cities and drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants. But they don't want to be called soft on immigration so they vote to militarize the border. They don't get out in front of these efforts, but they vote for the harsh measures the GOPs propose. Likewise the GOP, they talk tough on immigration but love the cheap labor. So you get decades of hypocritical policy. We let people die of thirst in the desert but if they make it we give them a job. It's a cruel, sick system. And it's bipartisan.

Another aspect is monetary aid. A lot of US aid to Mexico is conditioned on Mexico fighting a bloody war on drugs. Americans don't want to admit that we're the users and without a demand there wouldn't be a supply. Instead we pretend Mexico is "pushing" drugs on us. Hillary and DiFi in particular are two prominent Dem pols sometimes called "liberals" when they're anything but.

Like I say I don't want to go research chapter and verse on every bad law that militarized the border, added surveillance, and so forth. You can Google around and find Hillary and Obama and Bill Clinton speaking out strongly against illegal immigration. And suddenly the Dems want to blame it all on Trump. It bothers me.

Separating thousands of children from their parents is not a fine point, my unsympathetic friend. — praxis

Your argument, as I understand it, is that when Obama separated and caged kids, he was doing it for Just and Wise reasons; whereas when Trump does it, he's Adolf Hitler running concentration camps. That is an ignorant and disingenuous position.

I read and follow a lot of sources on both the left and right. That's why in the summer of 2014 I read dozens of articles and as many cable news reports of the awful humanitarian crisis Obama had on the southern border that overwhelmed our immigration system. But very little of it was reported in the MSM or liberal-leaning cable networks. The result is that many liberals honestly don't know about the summer of 2014. In fact many times liberals have tweeted out photos of "Trump's kids in cages" that turned out to be photos from Obama's cages in 2014.

Now it is true that Obama caged fewer kids. There's a reason for that. When you separate a kid from his ALLEGED parent long enough to determine whether it's an actual parent or a trafficker, you then have to keep the kid safe from violent sexual predators, so you put them in an caged enclosure. The cages are to PROTECT the kids. But the optics are terrible.

It's much better politically to just turn the kids over to the alleged parents. In the end you cage fewer kids but turn more kids over to sex traffickers. That's the route Obama chose.

But why are we talking about who put more kids in cages? Many liberals actually disbelieve that Obama put ANY kids in cages. It was a big shock a few of months ago when Jeh Johnson, Obama's director of Homeland security, admitted that Obama built the cages. Most liberals simply had no idea. Myself, I despaired at the deadly combination of arrogance and ignorance embodied by those liberals.

You dare call me unsympathetic to the plight of Mexican and central American refugees? I am far more sympathetic to them, having followed this ongoing tragedy for decades, than the many ignorant liberals who think history started when Trump got elected. They don't take any responsibility for the anti-immigrant rhetoric of Bill and Hill and Obama. They don't know about the foreign aid conditioned on perpetuating the drug war, leading to the human misery that underlies the upwelling of desperate migrants from central America and Mexico. They don't have any idea how the border has been militarized over the last 25 years. All they know is Orange Man Bad. That's not compassion. It's preening ignorance.

This thread is analogous to dousing several pyromaniacs with petrol and then handing them a box of matches!

They’re burning hard and bright for all to see ... sadly maybe it is the ones burning that cannot see the effect? Guess time will tell.

Just goes to show that attempts to offer nuanced, and alternative, perspectives in order to build bridges can have the opposite effect - it’s the reason I don’t bother posting much on forums anymore, and if I do, I look for a mutual position to build a discussion from. Sadly many people are not interested in discussions, in opening up to different ideas and perspectives (irrespective of how their moral disposition aligns itself).

I wish we could all accept that we’re mostly dumb and biased creatures that spend far more fooling ourselves than we do trying to fool others. If you cannot offer up a reason counter argument to your position, whatever it may be, then start to doubt your certain (I fail at this, and so will everyone else. To me it seems like the most reasonable and logic course to try and stay on though)

Anyway, back to the flames ... :D

Which is just another convoluted way of saying "ya'll stupid".

Most of the disagreement stems from different interpretations of fact.

Hanover and Judaka don't take Maw's comparison of Trump with Hitler seriously, because they don't share the same interpretation. So people are now arguing about the interpretation while the subject really should be the behaviour of Trump that gave rise to such worry that Maw makes the comparison.

I personally think Trump is clearly racist and that it doesn't matter that he is at the same time. As long as he pursues policies the GOP agrees with he will get away with this whole unitary executive nonsense and that basically smells of authoritarianism. But that power is useful if it's exercised on favour of your own agenda. So his border policies were probably informed by his racism/xenophobia but nobody who wants stricter border control really cares that it was.

Can you trust the GOP not to support "worse" policies?

Most of you clearly don't read any relevant political material, and it shows in your comments. — Maw

And some of us seem to enjoy being arrogant and condescending.

Not at all. I said :

I wish we could all accept that we’re mostly dumb and biased creatures that spend far more fooling ourselves than we do trying to fool others. If you cannot offer up a reason counter argument to your position, whatever it may be, then start to doubt your certainty (I fail at this, and so will everyone else. To me it seems like the most reasonable and logic course to try and stay on though) — I like sushi

Thanks for another example of misrepresentation. To be fair you may have some previous beef with me and so you could’ve misread. It happens, we all do it from time to time. That was the general impression I got from the OP. We all err and we disagree at some time or another, but that shouldn’t mean we have to go to war with each other.

I had an exchange on another thread similar to some of the exchanges here. It can be hard to offer charity and harder still to just walk away when the charity is refused/unseen - I try to leave the door open though and see if anything can be gained by attempting to reengage in discussions with people who previously seemed shutdown and/or venting their anger. I hope others regard me in the same light, but I don’t demand it.

Note: typo amended ‘certain’ to ‘certainty’

But why are we talking about who put more kids in cages? Many liberals actually disbelieve that Obama put ANY kids in cages. It was a big shock a few of months ago when Jeh Johnson, Obama's director of Homeland security, admitted that Obama built the cages. Most liberals simply had no idea. — fishfry

Countries typically have policies and procedures that transcend party lines. It's simply a myth that in a democracy government day-to-day operations would differ so much depending on what party is in power. Even if political leadership does matter. And naturally political parties do have an incentive to portray themselves to act totally differently than the other party.

You can Google around and find Hillary and Obama and Bill Clinton speaking out strongly against illegal immigration. And suddenly the Dems want to blame it all on Trump. It bothers me. — fishfry

I understand what you're saying. Trump played his part by not filling vacancies for judges at the border, and then Honduras went into crisis.

And then with the ling history of the US absorbing Latin America into itself. Not much of this is about racism.

The snake can’t help itself, it’s its nature to bite. Maybe poetic license excuses blatant racism. — praxis

And the venomous snake bit the woman in more ways than one with the final line:

''Oh be quiet you silly woman ! You knew I was a snake before you took me in."

So, this was a clever use of a poem. It framed a caring woman as stupid and will have chimed well with the patriarchal religious. The Garden of Eden - Adam, Eve and the Snake. Where woman is blamed for tempting Adam to eat the apple from the Tree of Knowledge. Again, the message we really should not seek knowledge - have faith in the Bible.

Just like the snake, Trump can't help being who he is. His nature to bite.
A great defence against anyone critical of his actions - 'you knew what I was like before you let me in.'
Some had hoped they might act as a balance and check...silly billies.

The video is quite mild compared to some rallies.

The latest at Minneapolis:

Trump sought to weaponise Democrats’ impeachment inquiry to his electoral advantage on Thursday at a typically crude-but-effective rally in which he declared Joe Biden “was only a good vice president because he understood how to kiss Barack Obama’s ass”.

In his first campaign stop since the inquiry was announced, the US president and a 20,000-capacity crowd staged a formidable show of defiance at a basketball arena in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Trump mesmerised his fans for 102 minutes with a verbal cannon of conspiracy theories, blatant falsehoods, profane insults and anti-refugee bigotry.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/11/trump-minneapolis-rally-biden
— David Smith

Countries typically have policies and procedures that transcend party lines. It's simply a myth that in a democracy government day-to-day operations would differ so much depending on what party is in power. — ssu

The trouble comes when a policy is then doubled down into a stronger, nastier tasting concentrate.
Then, each party can blame the other for starting it.
And so it goes...

So people are now arguing about the interpretation while the subject really should be the behaviour of Trump that gave rise to such worry that Maw makes the comparison. — Benkei

Exactly this.

Surely any intelligent observer, without any commitment to political ideology left or right, can see that mendacity is a threat to the integrity of any political system? Mendacity is habitual lying and Donald Trump is indubitably guilty of it. You can't say 'all politicians lie, how is he different?' because no US politicians of note have lied with anything like the same prolixity and consequence as Donald J Trump. He lies practically every time he opens his mouth.

Now as soon as you begin to equivocate about that, or say 'it doesn't matter' or 'what about the Democrats' - then it's already game over. Then you have accepted the fact that it's basically OK that the President lies every time he opens his mouth.

The Bible says that 'the devil is the father of lies'. Well - stand aside, devil.

By way of slightly changing the direction, try a comparison with the Handmaid's tale instead of the Nastis...
Deplorable or not deplorable?

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/feature/inside-the-christian-legal-army-weakening-the-church-state-divide?fbclid=IwAR1LIERSfxJJ-pz-FxHDT3Qmc8ffYzPi_kJ-dAWkFYgPrgl5tmeRLI8r3Og

I don't know how reputable this source, but my recollections that religious courts were not that great an idea and apart from the Church-state separation thing, they don't do free speech very well either, which is ironic.

there’s such a thing as the religious left. And not all evangelicals support Trump, either.

And?

And some of us seem to enjoy being arrogant and condescending. — ssu

Anyone who has been keeping up with post-2016 political discourse and election analysis should have found it fairly easy to point out the bullshit discussed in that documentary, as I did. I've spend the last few years making the effort to keep myself informed, and I'm not going to take kindly to people who continually think they can get away with not doing their homework, yet act as if their thoughts and speculation on the matter are more valid than mine.

You're welcome. If you don't want misrepresentation then try to avoid comparing other posters to petrol-doused pyromaniacs playing with matches. I'm not sure how else I'm supposed to interpret that than saying "y'all stupid". What did you mean with it then?

In his first campaign stop since the inquiry was announced, the US president and a 20,000-capacity crowd staged a formidable show of defiance at a basketball arena in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Trump mesmerised his fans for 102 minutes with a verbal cannon of conspiracy theories, blatant falsehoods, profane insults and anti-refugee bigotry.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/11/trump-minneapolis-rally-biden — David Smith

This account of Trump’s rally confirms that his base is indeed comprised of deplorable and “unspeakable” people. “Trump mesmerised his fans for 102 minutes with a verbal cannon of conspiracy theories, blatant falsehoods, profane insults, and anti-refugee bigotry” - Trump speaks what his rally wants to hear, and he speaks on behalf of it. Farther, he could expand his discourse far beyond this particular rally. Probably, so far, this change has been the central part of the so-called “tectonic shift” of Trump’s presidency. All allegations of fascistic transformations, and of destroying democratic institutions have not been verified yet.

I have a hard time understanding this. Obama was apparently the reincarnation of Chairman Mao and the Antichrist, all at the same time. I never thought to say to a conservative: "Keep it up and we'll re-elect him!" — frank

The outrage does seem to be expressed in different ways by the different parties. The left seems to get very lecture driven, condescending, and emotional. I'm not saying the right has no emotional investment, but it's typically an argumentative anger, as opposed to crying at a loss, and the violence in the streets is rarely from the right.

But there is something openly consequence driven from the right, as when Trump said he'd increase the height of the wall if people kept complaining about. It was a totally ridiculous, of course, but that paternalistic "I'm going to turn this car around and no one is getting any ice cream" response does resonate with the right. Or, maybe it's a fuck with me, I'll fuck with you response, which, again sounds like a right driven refusal to be a victim sort of approach.

Obviously all of this is loose group psychoanalysis, which I'm sure varies considerably among its members, but there's no doubt that the reactions of the respective sides are notably different.

As for me. I just gotta be me.

Other people have already said the same thing - with less humour. Maybe you didn’t read their comments previously, no bother.

Rather than saying, ‘yeah, some guys on the left are going a tad too far’ there is a tendency for some people here to double-down and ride the ‘they’re all racists and stupid’ ... which ironically was precisely the point of the OP.

I wouldn’t call it ‘stupid’ per se, that some believe such a response is more constructive than simply saying, ‘yeah, it’s an issue, but there are serious concerns here.’ It happens across many, if not all, forums. Calling people stupid doesn’t really help, yet ... why do I need to point out that it’s rather, shall we say ‘strange’, to call millions who voted for Trump or Brexit stupid (not that I believe YOU did) and then thinking they won’t react as you have to my joke - which was also framed in a manner where I said everyone is prone to stupidity.

The fire is burning. I don’t really care for it and I think the OP was overly optimistic in the responses that would come out. At least people generally avoided engaging with Maw for a while (progress there I guess).

I'm not sure how else I'm supposed to interpret that than saying "y'all stupid". — Benkei

It'd be ya'll're (you all are) stupid, not y'all stupid, unless you were going for the African American dialect that truncates the final consonant, but I doubt you're that hip.

Leave southern talk to the southerners.

As for me. I just gotta be me. — Hanover

True.

At least people generally avoided engaging with Maw for a while (progress there I guess — I like sushi

Yeah thank Christ on that one

Separating thousands of children from their parents is not a fine point, my unsympathetic friend.
— praxis

Your argument, as I understand it, is that when Obama separated and caged kids, he was doing it for Just and Wise reasons; whereas when Trump does it, he's Adolf Hitler running concentration camps. — fishfry

No, and I haven’t made an argument. I will simply repost what I posted before:

Politifact [gotta love politifact!] claims:

Obama and Biden in 2014 saw an influx of children arriving at the border without a parent or guardian, and reporting from 2014 by the Arizona Republic referred to a chain-link enclosure holding children as cages.

Trump’s administration implemented a policy that led to the separation of thousands of children from their parents. Obama did not have that policy.

Can you see the part I underlined, fishfry? You can’t separate a child from their parent if no parent is present. I don’t know if any of this is true but politifact is pretty reliable from what I understand. Again, if you can show public records that help to substantiate your version of these events please do so.

HUMOUR STILL EXISTS? Maybe there is hope yet :)

It'd be ya'll're (you all are) stupid, not y'all stupid, unless you were going for the African American dialect that truncates the final consonant, but I doubt you're that hip. — Hanover

Hip? 2 unlimited - get ready for this

1991. Dutch.

Can you see the part I underlined, fishfry? You can’t separate a child from their parent if no parent is present. I don’t know if any of this is true but politifact is pretty reliable from what I understand. Again, if you can show public records that help to substantiate your version of these events please do so. — praxis

I'm pretty sure when discussing this with @ArguingWAristotleTiff last year that Obama separated kids from the people they were travelling with because they couldn't establish whether they were their parents or not. Mostly done to avoid human trafficking.