Has President Donald Trump done more to defeat racism and to help minorities in 47 months than Joe Biden has done in 47 years?

[Freddy]

Freddy:

1cthlctrth:

So much for the Fake News media that tries to fan the flames of racial division, or to portray an “increasing racial divide”.

That you can post a link from The Gateway Pundit and then complain about fake news shows that irony is not dead.

Only if you subscribe to the genetic fallacy instead of actually pointing out the fakery. Care to demonstrate the actual falsity of the article (or better yet in the cited study by University of Pennsylvania researchers Danial (sp) J. Hopkins and Samantha Washington)?

That was already done. They promoted research to suggest that Trump was the cause of a decrease in racism. When the paper suggested that examples of systematic racism had descreased despite Trump and not because of him. You only had to read the first paragraph to realise that. But if the article is telling you what you want to hear, why bother checking…

If you think that The Gateway Pundit is a great example of political punditry then feel free to use it for a source for the information that you need to make a decision as to who to vote for.

 

[1cthlctrth]

despite Trump

Please identify the most damaging example of Trump saying or doing anything “racist”.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

despite Trump

Please identify the most damaging example of Trump saying or doing anything “racist”.

If you need me to give you an example then it seems that you’re either unaware of any of the comments that he’s made or you don’t think that anything he has said has been racist.

I cannot believe that it could be the former so I assume the latter is correct. In which case there aren’t any that you would accept.

Don’t forget to vote.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Only if you subscribe to the genetic fallacy instead of actually pointing out the fakery. Care to demonstrate the actual falsity of the article…

That was already done. They promoted research to suggest that Trump was the cause of a decrease in racism. When the paper suggested that examples of systematic racism had descreased despite Trump and not because of him. You only had to read the first paragraph to realise that. But if the article is telling you what you want to hear, why bother checking…

Did you actually read the article? Or the cited paper?

Yet the study found exactly the opposite. Americans, claim Hopkins and Washington, have actually become less inclined to express racist opinions since Donald Trump was elected. Anti-black prejudice, they found, declined by a statistically-insignificant degree between 2012 and 2016, when Trump was elected. But then after 2016 it took a sharp dive that was statistically significant. Moreover, contrary to their expectations, the fall was as evident among Republican voters as it was among Democrats. There was also a general fall in anti-Hispanic prejudice, too, although this was more evident among Democrat voters.

I don’t see any claim regarding despite in those.

However, I do see that implication in the Spectator article that the Gateway Pundit site linked to. That isn’t the Hopkins and Washington article, though.

Now the Spectator did a dishonest bit of journalism by bringing up a couple of cases of apparent racism to show that racism is supposedly rampant under Trump, but that doesn’t make the case. One or two swallows do not a summer make.

What they leave out are the number of documented cases of racism year over year. Why wouldn’t they do that if they wanted to actually prove the case that MORE racism exists under Trump than previously? It is shoddy work.

At least the Gateway Pundit provided links to the Spectator article that cited the Hopkins and Washington paper, DESPITE that it ran completely counter to the point that the Gateway article made. Perhaps, the Gateway was relying on astute readers to catch how badly argued the Spectator article was?

If you think that The Gateway Pundit is a great example of political punditry then feel free to use it for a source for the information that you need to make a decision as to who to vote for.

I typically don’t use any source without assessing the quality of the claims in that source. In this case, the Gateway article isn’t as outrageous as the Spectator article that you mistook for the claims of the paper by Hopkins and Washington.

Just to be clear the author of what you claim, Re: despite, was Ross Clark of the Spectator not the cited paper. You appear to have confused the two when you claim…

When the paper suggested that examples of systematic racism had descreased despite Trump and not because of him.

 

[Inquisitor85]

And in passing, there is an Australian government webpage that advises Autralians about travel to various countries (notwithstanding the present pandemic). It has issued a warning to be extra vigillant in the States during the election.

The UK’s FCO has a note that there have been protests, some of which have turned violent, and to exercise increased care in affected areas.

There is also a note that the risk of terrorist incidents is “very high” and likely to be by “lone wolf” attackers. I think “lone wolf” is typically used to denote far right extremists.

 

[PatienceAndHumility]

Who? Shylock? Sounds like more theatrics

Start with Sheldon and go from there.

Why not come right out and say who that “highest donor” is and why they are objectionable?

It is never wise to drop Truth recklessly, especially with mass delusion rife. Suffice to offer a thread and see who understands.

Shocking the people who support him… …all those moms and veterans and people who want to build the country instead of loot, burn or tear it down.

Clearly not talking about them, strawman…

 

[Freddy]

Did you actually read the article? Or the cited paper?

From tbe abstract:

In his campaign and first few years in office, Donald Trump consistently defied contemporary norms by using explicit, negative rhetoric targeting ethnic/racial minorities… These results suggest the limits of racially charged rhetoric’s capacity to heighten prejudice among white Americans overall. They also indicate that rather than being a fixed predisposition, prejudice can shift by reacting against changing presidential rhetoric.

Did you catch that? That prejudice can shift by reacting against Trump’s rhetoric. And the paper is used as a positive example of Trump’s views? So that we end up with people asking for examples of racist rhetoric by the guy?

What Alice in The Looking Glass world are we living in?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Who? Shylock? Sounds like more theatrics

Start with Sheldon and go from there.

What is your point, precisely? Or are you loath to “drop Truth recklessly?”

Is it that Adelson is a billionaire or that he owns a casino?

Did you know that 134 billionaires have donated to the Biden campaign, including one that owns 10 hotels and casinos in Las Vegas?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Did you actually read the article? Or the cited paper?

From tbe abstract:

In his campaign and first few years in office, Donald Trump consistently defied contemporary norms by using explicit, negative rhetoric targeting ethnic/racial minorities… These results suggest the limits of racially charged rhetoric’s capacity to heighten prejudice among white Americans overall. They also indicate that rather than being a fixed predisposition, prejudice can shift by reacting against changing presidential rhetoric.

Did you catch that? That prejudice can shift by reacting against Trump’s rhetoric. And the paper is used as a positive example of Trump’s views? So that we end up with people asking for examples of racist rhetoric by the guy?

What Alice in The Looking Glass world are we living in?

The assumption in your quote appears to be that his rhetoric is, in fact, “racially charged” and that his hearers take it to be such when THEY hear it. That, however, is an assumption skewed by the writers of the abstract (and you) regarding whether or not his rhetoric is, in fact, “racially charged,” whatever that means.

Perhaps the reason there has been no anticipated heightened prejudice is that NO ONE except the writers of the abstract, the Spectator article author and you take Trump’s words to be racially charged at all. Throws the entire thesis out the window if one does not start with your assumption, and it explains even better why his supposedly charged rhetoric has NOT heightened racial tension.

 

[PatienceAndHumility]

What is your point, precisely? Or are you loath to “drop Truth recklessly?”

Is it that Adelson is a billionaire or that he owns a casino?

What else is Sheldon known for, putting on your eschatological lenses?

Did you know that 134 billionaires have donated to the Biden campaign, including one that owns 10 hotels and casinos in Las Vegas?

Biden is beholden to the establishment as much as Trump is. Think in proxies. Iceberg is large sir

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

What is your point, precisely? Or are you loath to “drop Truth recklessly?”

Is it that Adelson is a billionaire or that he owns a casino?

What else is Sheldon known for, putting on your eschatological lenses?

Opposition to cannabis and recreational drugs?

That he is Jewish?

Opposition to China hosting the Olympics?

Allegedly bribing the Chinese to build a hotel and casino in Macao (for which he successfully sued the Daily Mail)?

HarryStotle:

Did you know that 134 billionaires have donated to the Biden campaign, including one that owns 10 hotels and casinos in Las Vegas?

Biden is beholden to the establishment as much as Trump is. Think in proxies. Iceberg is large sir

He owned the Titanic?

I am not as adept at metaphors as you apparently are. I prefer the truth straight up and clearly stated.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

HarryStotle:

Did you actually read the article? Or the cited paper?

From tbe abstract:

In his campaign and first few years in office, Donald Trump consistently defied contemporary norms by using explicit, negative rhetoric targeting ethnic/racial minorities… These results suggest the limits of racially charged rhetoric’s capacity to heighten prejudice among white Americans overall. They also indicate that rather than being a fixed predisposition, prejudice can shift by reacting against changing presidential rhetoric.

Did you catch that? That prejudice can shift by reacting against Trump’s rhetoric. And the paper is used as a positive example of Trump’s views? So that we end up with people asking for examples of racist rhetoric by the guy?

What Alice in The Looking Glass world are we living in?

The assumption in your quote appears to be that his rhetoric is, in fact, “racially charged” and that his hearers take it to be such when THEY hear it. That, however, is an assumption skewed by the writers of the abstract (and you) regarding whether or not his rhetoric is, in fact, “racially charged,” whatever that means.

So we’ve had people promoting a paper because it looks like it’s supporting a view that Trump isn’t racist: ‘Look what it says!’

Then it had to be pointed out (because no-one had bothered to even read the abstract) that the paper doesn’t do that. In fact it suggests just the opposite.

So now we have a 180 and it’s suggested that the paper is skewed, biased and we should ignore it.

‘Look at this!’
‘But it doesn’t say what you think it says’.
‘Then look at this instead!’

This is what passes for political discourse these days. It’s always been the same to some extent - I’ve been around the block too many times to think otherwise. But there’s no accountability these days. Time was when there was time to question someone’s position and demand that they either hold to it and justify it or admit that they were wrong.

These days it’s ‘fake news’ and blatant lies that come so thick and fast and are repeated so frequently that even the most cynical of us wilt. It is accutely depressing.

 

[PatienceAndHumility]

Opposition to cannabis and recreational drugs?

That he is Jewish?

Opposition to China hosting the Olympics?

Allegedly bribing the Chinese to build a hotel and casino in Macao (for which he successfully sued the Daily Mail)?

None of this. I am sorry to speak in “riddles” too, I don’t mean to. It’s just that some truths are best left for the seeker to discover. I’ve tried too many times, especially in the context of Trump and the current political climate, to show people down the rabbit hole but it is very difficult. The prerequisite critical thinking skills need you to first (for example) forget the fake left/right paradigm. Think about chess and sacrificing your queen in order to set up checkmate. Think of geopolitical proxies and Salvation History

 

[HarryStotle]

So we’ve had people promoting a paper because it looks like it’s supporting a view that Trump isn’t racist: ‘Look what it says!’

Then it had to be pointed out (because no-one had bothered to even read the abstract) that the paper doesn’t do that. In fact it suggests just the opposite.

So now we have a 180 and it’s suggested that the paper is skewed, biased and we should ignore it.

‘Look at this!’
‘But it doesn’t say what you think it says’.
‘Then look at this instead!’

This is what passes for political discourse these days. It’s always been the same to some extent - I’ve been around the block too many times to think otherwise. But there’s no accountability these days. Time was when there was time to question someone’s position and demand that they either hold to it and justify it or admit that they were wrong.

These days it’s ‘fake news’ and blatant lies that come so thick and fast and are repeated so frequently that even the most cynical of us wilt. It is accutely depressing.

You missed the point. The paper can only “suggest the opposite” if you assume that Trump’s rhetoric is racist.

Since his rhetoric hasn’t created heightened racial tension — as the paper admits — then rather than admitting that perhaps his rhetoric isn’t racist (the logical conclusion of what the paper shows), you want to stick with: his rhetoric is racist but inexplicably doesn’t cause more racism it does just the opposite, it reduces racism.

And that, despite that Trump’s rhetoric is a dog whistle to racists and bringing them out of the woodwork, racism is on the decline. I see the “logic,” now…

Yeah, no. The most logically plausible conclusion is that Trump’s rhetoric isn’t racist and that is the reason racism hasn’t been increased but quelled.

Perhaps you’ve gone too many times around the block and have gotten dizzy as a result of your attempts to spin things by arguing in circles…

Let’s assume Trump is racist > racism declines > People must be less racist because of a negative response to Trump > Trump is definitely a racist.

Yeah, the logic there is undeniable. :crazy_face:

All this despite that all of the racists are supposedly on Trump’s side and would do all of his bidding (but haven’t), while all of the non-racists (i.e., the ones who were never racist to begin with) are the only ones who would respond negatively to Trump and would never do his bidding are in the other camp.

Spin that logic as “fake” news.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Opposition to cannabis and recreational drugs?

That he is Jewish?

Opposition to China hosting the Olympics?

Allegedly bribing the Chinese to build a hotel and casino in Macao (for which he successfully sued the Daily Mail)?

None of this. I am sorry to speak in “riddles” too, I don’t mean to. It’s just that some truths are best left for the seeker to discover. I’ve tried too many times, especially in the context of Trump and the current political climate, to show people down the rabbit hole but it is very difficult. The prerequisite critical thinking skills need you to first (for example) forget the fake left/right paradigm. Think about chess and sacrificing your queen in order to set up checkmate. Think of geopolitical proxies and Salvation History

It is all crystal clear now.

Think of geopolitical proxies and Salvation History…

And sheeps on clouds…

 

[PatienceAndHumility]

Think of geopolitical proxies and Salvation History…

And sheeps on clouds…

A question for you- what are your thoughts on the Middle East peace treaties?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Think of geopolitical proxies and Salvation History…

And sheeps on clouds…

A question for you- what are your thoughts on the Middle East peace treaties?

Quietly optimistic.

 

[Freddy]

You missed the point. The paper can only “suggest the opposite” if you assume that Trump’s rhetoric is racist.

Since his rhetoric hasn’t created heightened racial tension — as the paper admits — then rather than admitting that perhaps his rhetoric isn’t racist (the logical conclusion of what the paper shows), you want to stick with: his rhetoric is racist but inexplicably doesn’t cause more racism it does just the opposite, it reduces racism.

That’s not my point. It’s the conclusion of the paper. I literally have no idea if they are correct ot not. My whole point has been nothing more than to point out the hypochrisy of promoting the paper because it was thought to show Trump in a good light and then doing a 180 and decrying it because it was pointed out that it didn’t. I’d point out the same hypochrisy if the situation was reversed.

Whether Trump does use racist rhetoric is another argument entirely.

 

[HarryStotle]

Freddy:

And in passing, there is an Australian government webpage that advises Autralians about travel to various countries (notwithstanding the present pandemic). It has issued a warning to be extra vigillant in the States during the election.

The UK’s FCO has a note that there have been protests, some of which have turned violent, and to exercise increased care in affected areas.

There is also a note that the risk of terrorist incidents is “very high” and likely to be by “lone wolf” attackers. I think “lone wolf” is typically used to denote far right extremists.

Right. The far left extremists typically travel in large packs all dressed the same so they can maraud, loot and burn at will and then blame the “lone wolf” far right extremists who stealthily crept in and did all the looting, rioting and burning while they - the leftists - peacefully protested.

That anyone can buy this garbage is a tribute to the development of the psychological manipulation expertise of the media news propaganda departments. Goebbels would be proud. How these people can lie with such straight faces is a wonder to behold.

 

[Freddy]

That anyone can buy this garbage is a tribute to the development of the psychological manipulation expertise of the media news propaganda departments. Goebbels would be proud. How these people can lie with such straight faces is a wonder to behold.

I’m not sure if you realise that the Australian and UK links that issued warnings about the US are both government sites. Do you think the government departments check Fox News or the Washington Post to see what the situation is in the US? Do you honestly think that both governments are being manipulated by the media?

Edit: And darn it, I think I accidently gave your post a ‘like’ I think. Ah well. It was well written even if I disagree with it.