***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[dwalk31]

I don't think I implied disagreeing with that but it requires more nuance. In fact I specifically said that globalist is not a bad word, as well as noting that a word can be inherently neutral but also used in a dog whistle/racist context. The two are not mutually exclusive. Globalist isn't a bad word, but the way globalist was used in that example clearly has a very different meaning.
What I wanted to point out is that there is a lot more nuance to words than just their inherent commonly accepted meaning and connotations. Context is also important of course, as well as the individual making the comments.

David Duke is obviously the most extreme example but I used him because I knew it would hardly take any time at all to find the kind of example I was looking for. It's not just the Klan folks who use globalist in that context for the record, just the most obvious example. David Duke and his Klan supporters generally opt to leave the dog whistles behind and get straight to the point.
The "globalist" dog whistle is probably one of the more common dog whistles against jews because it offers a lot of plausible deniabillity.

It is kind of the purpose of a dog whistle to begin with. When someone willfully uses a dog whistle, that individual's goal is to try get a point across that would be too racist or otherwise offensive if said in more direct terms, while also offering sufficient plausible deniability if you're called out on it. Inherently neutral terms are essential to this process, particularly regarding the plausible deniability.
Strategist and former Reagan adviser Lee Atwater's 1981 quote continues to be an excellent demonstration of this principle. The terms are different but the principle is largely unchanged.

You talk a lot about the manner in which David Duke used the word globalist, but the issue is how Trump used the word nationalist. How, if it all, was the way Trump used nationalist racist—in context?

 

[cubanref]

Trump has no problem demonizing brown and black immigrants ... I don't think I've ever heard him speak of undocumented immigrants that overstay their visas from European countries... I wonder why...

 

[Belgium]

You talk a lot about the manner in which David Duke used the word globalist, but the issue is how Trump used the word nationalist. How, if it all, was the way Trump used nationalist racist—in context?

I quoted responded directly to something you said though?

Words have meaning. Nationalist isn’t a bad word. Just like Globalist isn’t.

 

[dacomeup]

Just recently the news attempted to blame Trump’s rhetoric for the anti-Semitic massacre. I’m sure you’d agree that’s ridiculous. And it ignores the context that his daughter, grandchildren, and Son-in-law are all Jewish. But facts be darned.

It is as ridiculous to assert Trump is anti-immigration when his wife and father are immigrants.

Also ridiculous to be called racist when you're white and you have a black friend, if you didn't know that.

 

[dwalk31]

I and quoted responded directly to something you said though?

Are you going to answer? We agree it is not inherently racist. Surely most words can be used in a racist way.

Just like a pencil isn’t inherently a violent weapon, but in the wrong hands it could be.

But as all of these words relate to trump, how are you making the leap that he is using them in a racist manner? Or were you just responding to the narrow issue of the ability to use words beyond their intended meaning?

 

[AEA18]

Why do you guys waste time with this clown?

He will pretend to not know what's going on and will never admit to anything. He gets his jollies from people ITT actually replying to his nonsense.

He is a troll. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[leavemeglazzies]

I'm not saying that Trump is anti-Semitic, I'm just saying that people who have walked with literal Nazi Germany swastika flags while chanting "Jews will not replace us!" think he's anti-Semitic. And Trump has said that there are fine people among them.

He's definitely pro-zionist though, but that's another story.

 

[dwalk31]

Also ridiculous to be called racist when you're white and you have a black friend, if you didn't know that.

Those aren’t analogous. But if you honestly think that Trump, who moved the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem, is an anti-Semite then you have a grave misunderstanding of global affairs.

 

[getback]

There is a reason that President Obama, and other presidents, deported so many undocumented immigrants. And they were not called racist for it.

Because Obama didn't say sh*t like this:

In June 2015, while Trump was a presidential candidate, he said, "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best."

He added: "They're sending people that have a lot of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

 

[dacomeup]

Those aren’t analogous. But if you honestly think that Trump, who moved the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem, is an anti-Semite then you have a grave misunderstanding of global affairs.

I don't have to believe he's an anti-semite to believe that your statements prove absolutely nothing. There are many factors behind Trump's move of the Embassy, and you're not someone who likes to discuss nuance so I'd rather not.

 

[dwalk31]

I'm not saying that Trump is anti-Semitic, I'm just saying that people who have walked with literal Nazi Germany swastika flags while chanting "Jews will not replace us!" think he's anti-Semitic. And Trump has said that there are fine people among them.

He's definitely pro-zionist though, but that's another story.

1. Are you saying that the stuff those people think is mostly accurate?

2. I think it was clear he wasn’t saying the neo-nazis are fine people. If there was any ambiguity he stated, on several occasions, that he condemns white supremacy, neo-nazis and all forms of racism. To casually ignore those statements is disingenuous.

3. The Zionism discussion is interesting. But the idea that one can be pro-Zionist and anti-Semitic, simultaneously, is absurd. It literally distorts the definitions of those words beyond recognition.

 

[tego calderon el abayarde]

When someone argues with an idiot, it becomes more and more difficult to tell them apart.

 

[IATT]

Hey look, dwalk is gaslighting..

I guess it must be a day that ends in Y

 

[dacomeup]

Again, this means absolutely nothing because Trump did not explicitly say why he was emphasizing the H in Obama's middle name.

 

[dwalk31]

Because Obama didn't say sh*t like this:

All of the statements you posted confirm that he isn’t saying things about all immigrants or even all Mexican immigrants.

I am the first to admit that he could do better with his tweets. The issue with them is the hyperbolic nature of them. But none of what you posted amounts to racism against a group of people.

 

[dwalk31]

When someone argues with an idiot, it becomes more and more difficult to tell them apart.

The logic in this thread assumes that if you were implying I’m an idiot, that since I’m black, you are using a racist dog whistle. And there is absolutely no other possible explanation considering the political climate.

Dat NT logic

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[getback]

If Trump strolled onto the White House lawn like this, dwalk would want handwriting analysis performed before he would concede that Trump is a bigot.

Never seen someone willfully gloss over blatant and concealed racism so effortlessly.

 

[boris]

A lot of people taking the bait.

 

[gil23]

Can’t believe y’all still entertaining this Dwalk dude smh

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

The appearance of antisemitism is only natural when your voting base Contains alt right ideologists. Trump probably isn’t an antisemite himself but he’s also clearly not in the business of turning away or condemning the alt right voter base. Most likely because amongst them there are “fine people”.

 

[Belgium]

Are you going to answer? We agree it is not inherently racist. Surely most words can be used in a racist way.

Just like a pencil isn’t inherently a violent weapon, but in the wrong hands it could be.

But as all of these words relate to trump, how are you making the leap that he is using them in a racist manner? Or were you just responding to the narrow issue of the ability to use words beyond their intended meaning?

The latter. Due to your previous arguments that don't appear to take into account anything beyond the most literal meaning of statements.
You treat language in an extremely narrow manner. Based on your previous comments, which mostly happened to be about Trump, it appears that a statement can only be racist to you if it is either coming from a Klan member, someone so unequivocally blatantly racist not one person in the right mind would argue against it, or literally spells out "with this statement I am specifically and only singling out black people (or other groups)."
You leave virtually no room for anything inbetween.

This started with the NFL comments, in which your argument was that anything other than an individual specifically saying that he is solely singling out African-Americans is to be dismissed.
"Did he say he is only talking about black athletes? If so that would be disgusting" was the sole qualification. Whether or not Trump's comments in those instances had anything to do with race, let's leave that aside, that argument is extremely narrow and detached from the reality of the complex nature of language. It is even further detached from reality when used in the context of politics.

Personally I don't see how you can acknowledge the concept of a dog whistle when you appear to narrow racism to strictly literal statements in which the person is specifically describing in his statement that he is targeting a specific racial group with the statements.
If an individual has a tendency of insulting a wide variety of groups, that definition is narrowed even further because anything but the most extreme blatant racist remarks will be dismissed as "but the person has insulted white people too."

 

[Mark Antony]

Ya'll are all aware of dude's tactics and that he has no interest in productive discourse by now, yet still engage.

 

[dwalk31]

The latter. Due to your previous arguments that don't appear to take into account anything beyond the most literal meaning of statements.
You treat language in an extremely narrow manner. Based on your previous comments, which mostly happened to be about Trump, it appears that a statement can only be racist to you if it is either coming from a Klan member, someone so unequivocally blatantly racist not one person in the right mind would argue against it, or literally spells out "with this statement I am specifically and only singling out black people (or other groups)."
You leave virtually no room for anything inbetween.

This started with the NFL comments, in which your argument was that anything other than an individual specifically saying that he is solely singling out African-Americans is to be dismissed.
"Did he say he is only talking about black athletes? If so that would be disgusting" was the sole qualification. Whether or not Trump's comments in those instances had anything to do with race, let's leave that aside, that argument is extremely narrow and detached from the reality of the complex nature of language.

Personally I don't see how you can acknowledge the concept of a dog whistle when you appear to narrow racism to strictly literal statements in which the person is specifically describing in his statement that he is targeting a specific racial group with the statements.
If an individual has a tendency of insulting a wide variety of groups, that definition is narrowed even further because anything but the most extreme blatant racist remarks will be dismissed as "but the person has insulted white people too."

My point is that if his intent is to embolden racists and retain their support, why not be unambiguous and say that he is making these statements based on race? Why condemn white supremacy? Like what is the point of him doing that, if he is indeed a racist and/or comfortable pandering to racists?