No one has said otherwise. I am not sure of your point.More than 10% supported Donald Trump.
I am not sure where you get the idea that everyone is being insulted, or even everyone that supporter him is being insulted.Insulting everyone, en masse, because they supported him over her, is demeaning.
While I do not defend the remarks in toto, I think that that is a completely unfair reading of them. The people criticized were critciized for certain, specific characteristics. While the number of people with such characteristics may have been over-estimated, criticism of those characteristics is not unwarrented and not an example of bigotry.What she said was the very definition of bigotry, grouping people together in a lump and treating them as a group in a derogatory manner.
I have not said that, nor do I think it.It is ok with you to write off a 10% that all bother to vote and by reason of their lack of a criminal record are eligible to vote as “deplorables”?
On the contrary, however spun, her actual remarks spoke directly to understanding and empathy of the decent people who were supporting Trump. Directly. Please show me something similar where Trump champions the immigration of good people from s******e countries.Your contention that she was saying they’re not all like that was as weak as Trump’s concession that some people immigrating from Mexico are good people.
I don’t disagree. But calling out a racism, sexism, xenophobia, sexism, is not the same thing, is it?My whole point is name-calling a whole group of people is even worse than name-calling an individual.
I’ll start with racism:Youre correct, so you start as to what constitues
- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.
- the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
When Donald Trump made his " When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best" comment, I think it is reasonable that all Mexican immigrants would take that as an insult, regardless of his weak qualification “and some, I assume, are good people.”I have not said that, nor do I think it.
Is it OK to suggest that the remarks were made about all Trump supporters?
Is it OK to divorce the remark from the specifics of what is deplorable?
Will it ever be possible to speak racism without the words being twisted for partisan advantage?
He said of Mexican immigrants: “…and some, I assume, are good people.” Weak. Weak. Weak.Please show me something similar where Trump champions the immigration of good people from s******e countries.
Calling people names instead of calling out behavior–and I have done it myself–crosses a line because it makes the person the same as the worst thing they have ever done. It literally identifies them with their bad behavior. The worst thing they do or think: that is who they are.I don’t disagree. But calling out a racism, sexism, xenophobia, sexism, is not the same thing, is it?
The comparison is gross, IMO.When Donald Trump … Likewise, when Hillary Clinton said
No. And I have said so years ago on this forum.Do we believe there are “irredeemable” people?
With what empathy and understanding are we treating those nominally assumed good people under Trump?He said of Mexican immigrants: “…and some, I assume, are good people.”
I agree.Calling people names instead of calling out behavior–and I have done it myself–crosses a line
That presuppose too much (are these static categories?) and seem to be the very reduction of her to some “behavior” - really a sentence quoted out of context - that you hold in contempt.That is exactly what HRC did
She split people who support Trump into “good people” and those she termed “irredeemable.”The comparison is gross, IMO.
Clinton, if you manage to look at the paragraph instead of the selected sentence, was speaking about the good people who supported Trump. What understanding and empathy - explicit in Clinton’s remarks - nwas present in Trump’s?
What really sinks her statement as not being empathetic or Christian was her dismissal of roughly half of Trump’s supporters as irredeemable.That presuppose too much (are these static categories?) and seem to be the very reduction of her to some “behavior” - really a sentence quoted out of context - that you hold in contempt.
Enough …There are former Nazis who can tell you that her attitude was not empathetic.
No, I’m not talking about analogies. I mean there are literally people who once belonged to the sentiment groups she was talking about who don’t belong any more. They grew as persons. They changed. They are people who held other groups of people in contempt but who don’t do that any more. They don’t make that journey by being treated as if they’re despicable or unredeemable or inferior as people and can’t ever be anything else. (That is the kind of message that actually puts people in that kind of mindset in the first place.)Enough …
Godwin’s law.
And you might look up “redeem” in the dictionary.
And acknowledge that racism, sexism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, homophobia exist in this country and should be called out.
Then, as I have already suggest, they are not in the basket.I mean there are literally people who once belonged to the sentiment groups she was talking about who don’t belong any more
At some point, they must bottom out and recognize that the acts are deplorable.They don’t make that journey by being treated as if they’re despicable
Whoever said that people cannot change and be something else?can’t ever be anything else.
Oh, so some of them are irredeemable, she just doesn’t know which ones.Then, as I have already suggest, they are not in the basket.
She did not say that too many of Trump’s supporters also support deplorable things or do deplorable things.At some point, they must bottom out and recognize that the acts are deplorable
ir·re·deem·a·ble /ˌi( r)rəˈdēməb(ə)l/Whoever said that people cannot change and be something else?
I’d say I’m trying to be fair and so I’m assessing that statement by the same measures I would use if the President said it.You seem determined to attach the worst possible interpretation of remarks that, in their explicit appeal to empathy and understanding, manifestly have a different meaning that you ascribe to them. You also assert some existential and even theological content to “irredeemable”, ignoring the simple meaning of “redeem” - compensating for bad aspects of (something) - and the context of campaign, where the aim of that compensation would be to change people’s voting by the time of the upcoming election. That is your choice. Not sure why one would make such a choice.
I agree completely with the aversion to name-calling. But, as I have said, there was a definiteness to the expression used that involved actions that arguably are deplorable. That difference between this remark and mere name-calling must be acknowledged if one is to be fair. And it is also important, if there is any hope of progress on these matters, to acknowledge that these isms and phobias are part of America. I appreciate your charity in not reducing people to their worst sins, but loving the sinner does not mean accepting the sin. I think that the matter of writing people off, is, as I have said before, likely to be in the simply a matter focus during an election in an election, not more.That technique of name-calling and reducing people as human beings because of their worst attitudes or their worst actions is off-limits for me
A pretty realistic one, rather.The second is that ISIS will have no power to attack where Trump doesn’t allow it after he’s elected. That was a pretty arrogant thing to say