It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Those Who Accuse Trump of Racism are the Racists

page: 4
43
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 06:21 AM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

BWAHAHAHA....


Yes I trust cnn more than a book that swears one family incested the human race into existence 5000 years ago , lol.




posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 07:04 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It's a bit of a stretch to say that all who accuse Trump of being a racist are racists.
However the dude in the video does sound racist.
They're talking about Lavar Ball, one of the greatest marketers in the world and what do they claim Trump is
threatened by?

Lavar's athleticism.

Having said that Trump is 71yrs old, he probably is racist.
Would he use the term "super predator"? No.
Would he not rent to African Americans due to the perceived potential loss of property value? Yes.



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 07:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: ParasuvO




those making the accusations are racists themselves


How am I racist?

Seriously it does just sound like the "I know you are but what am I" argument, which I find pretty difficult to take seriously when you cannot demonstrate how calling Trump racist automatically makes the accuser a racist. I have really tried to explain in this thread why I think he has at times made racist remarks, I think that fundamentally the issue is simply that many don't want to acknowledge that race is not just black and white. Which brings me on to this....



making definitions according to their whims and trashing nationalism.


Nope, these are not just random definitions that have been made up to conveniently trash Trumpism, the aforementioned UN definition has been around since the 1960's for example. Race is widely seen as a cultural construct as opposed to a biological one now for decades. If you have not moved with the times and don't like or understand these modern perspectives on race then that is your problem. It does not make you correct in your position because you simply refuse to acknowledge what race and racism actually is.

In fact when you look at it like that then to some extent the "I know you are but what am I" argument could be turned on its head. It is you, the right, who are making up the definitions, you just want to pretend that the definition of race has not changed since its biological understanding of the early 20th century.



You are sure a highly compartmentalized and confused bunch...it REALLY IS the new religion...


I dont even know what this means and I don't think you know either so we can just ignore this for now and focus on the topic at hand...

He is saying your entire dogma is n
based on and relies upon you having faith you are correct. And your faith earns you favor with your new gods of authority

You worship the cult of authority you believe all their new definitions BECAUSE it it aligns with their religious dogma you have memorized in your heart. Now all that is left is to change definitions to adhere to your beliefs. You really have become a person of faith on these boards.



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: burgerbuddy

When you post something on topic that is worth me responding to please let me know, otherwise do not expect me to respond.



No matter.

You "think" he made racist remarks, that's a problem.

You have Adam Schiff level opinions.

Full of #, both of ya.

So we cool.




posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: bulwarkz



based on and relies upon you having faith you are correct.


Sorry but can I be clear on something.

It is not my opinion that race is a social construct that includes nationality, under the legal definition of the UK (under whose jurisdiction I am subject to) race, and racism includes nationality. This is reflected in the legislation of many other states in the world and indeed under the UN definition.

Its a fact not a opinion.

As for definitions in America I have struggled to find any official definition of race outside of the Office of Management and Budget:


The racial categories included in the census questionnaire generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country and not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically. In addition, it is recognized that the categories of the race item include racial and national origin or sociocultural groups.


So again even under American definitions race is recognised as not being biological in nature.

So again I just want to be very clear, those who want to argue that race is purely a biological construct are not supported by modern definitions.



You worship the cult of authority you believe all their new definitions BECAUSE it it aligns with their religious dogma you have memorized in your heart.


No I believe these definitions because that is how race is defined legally. It has nothing to do with "worship" or "religious dogma" and everything to do with what is factually correct.



Now all that is left is to change definitions to adhere to your beliefs


Nope these definitions have been in place for decades now, its just how race is defined, the argument of left vs right has no influence on this.

To sum up, yes to say "All Mexicans are scum" is just as racist under these definitions as saying "All blacks are scum".

Now if you do not like that, thats fine, you can disagree with how it is defined but it does not change what is generally accepted at the legal definition of race and as such does not make you "correct".



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy




You "think" he made racist remarks, that's a problem.


No I don't think he has made racist remarks....

he has made racist remarks.

This Link is full of examples where he has been quoted as making remarks that would be considered to be racist under the correct definitions of racism.

I think this is part of the problem with this entire argument, the right seem to think that its a matter of opinion rather than a matter of fact and as such is up for debate when the reality is that there is no debate. Trump has at times said things that are racist.

You can disagree with the definitions all you want but that does not change those definitions, they still stand as being the accepted definitions.



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
This Link is full of examples where he has been quoted as making remarks that would be considered to be racist under the correct definitions of racism.


A lot of those are a stretch or fabrications.
But thanks for the link...



Trump once referred to a Hispanic Miss Universe as “Miss Housekeeping.”

That's hilarious!



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin




Well to you they are absurd

And thats fine i never said you had to like it only that, thats how it is now defined by a large part of the world.


Except in biology, genetics, and every other science known to man.


Dude like I said, you don't have to accept it or like it but the fact remains, the UN says that race includes nationality so when Trump mage a derogatory comment towards a group of people based on their nationality it could be argued by many its racist.

Sure biological race in the sense of skin pigmentation is still a factor but there is no real denying that as I pointed out in my first comment that race is much more than just biology, its about nationality, ethnicity and yes biological race. I don't really want to repeat myself as I have posted my argument for that in said post. What I will say is that race today is seen as much more of a social construct than it is a biological one, if you just google "race as a social construct" you will find lots of information on this.

If you wish to disagree with me then feel free to do so.


Trump was specifically talking about nations. Sorry but, only a fool would say a nation was a race. Feel free to disagree.



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: burgerbuddy




You "think" he made racist remarks, that's a problem.


No I don't think he has made racist remarks....

he has made racist remarks.

This Link is full of examples where he has been quoted as making remarks that would be considered to be racist under the correct definitions of racism.

I think this is part of the problem with this entire argument, the right seem to think that its a matter of opinion rather than a matter of fact and as such is up for debate when the reality is that there is no debate. Trump has at times said things that are racist.

You can disagree with the definitions all you want but that does not change those definitions, they still stand as being the accepted definitions.




Opinions, everyone has an asshole too.

Although it puzzles me how some people can be so full of # when the exit is right there.






posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




Trump was specifically talking about nations. Sorry but, only a fool would say a nation was a race. Feel free to disagree.


Yup and as I have said before I think it is entirely acceptable to say that a particular state is a crap-hole or whatever.

I don't think it is racist to refer to a geographical location as such.

What is racist is to say that "Mexicans are not sending their best they are sending rapists" That is racist, its saying that the Mexicans who are coming into America are bad people and that is racist because he is basing this on the fact that they are Mexican and making that generalisation.

Its not the nation that is the race it is the national identity of the individual that forms part of the race. For example I identify as being nationally Scottish, so it would be racist for you to say "all Scottish people are scum" but to say that "I hate Scotland, the food is crap" is not necessary racist its just a opinion on our cuisine.

I am starting to feel like this is a circular argument.
edit on 9-3-2018 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: burgerbuddy




You "think" he made racist remarks, that's a problem.


No I don't think he has made racist remarks....

he has made racist remarks.

This Link is full of examples where he has been quoted as making remarks that would be considered to be racist under the correct definitions of racism.

I think this is part of the problem with this entire argument, the right seem to think that its a matter of opinion rather than a matter of fact and as such is up for debate when the reality is that there is no debate. Trump has at times said things that are racist.

You can disagree with the definitions all you want but that does not change those definitions, they still stand as being the accepted definitions.




Opinions, everyone has an asshole too.

Although it puzzles me how some people can be so full of # when the exit is right there.





Again none of what you are saying is actually challenging my argument.

You do realise that you can just admit to being wrong about something.

These one or two sentences you keep posting in response to me are not making your argument seem anymore valid.



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar




Would he not rent to African Americans due to the perceived potential loss of property value? Yes.


There is zero evidence for that.



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




Trump was specifically talking about nations. Sorry but, only a fool would say a nation was a race. Feel free to disagree.


Yup and as I have said before I think it is entirely acceptable to say that a particular state is a crap-hole or whatever.

I don't think it is racist to refer to a geographical location as such.

What is racist is to say that "Mexicans are not sending their best they are sending rapists" That is racist, its saying that the Mexicans who are coming into America are bad people and that is racist because he is basing this on the fact that they are Mexican and making that generalisation.

I am starting to feel like this is a circular argument.


Yes, you think it’s racist because the UN tells you it is. Highly circular. Your misrepresentation of Trump’s remarks are evident.



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




Trump was specifically talking about nations. Sorry but, only a fool would say a nation was a race. Feel free to disagree.


Yup and as I have said before I think it is entirely acceptable to say that a particular state is a crap-hole or whatever.

I don't think it is racist to refer to a geographical location as such.

What is racist is to say that "Mexicans are not sending their best they are sending rapists" That is racist, its saying that the Mexicans who are coming into America are bad people and that is racist because he is basing this on the fact that they are Mexican and making that generalisation.

I am starting to feel like this is a circular argument.


Yes, you think it’s racist because the UN tells you it is. Highly circular. Your misrepresentation of Trump’s remarks are evident.


No because that is what the definitions say it is.

You don't have to like it but you cannot say that it is factually wrong to say that its racist to make a decretory remark against a persons nationality.

What you can say is that its possible for you to say that you disagree with that and that in your opinion that is wrong.

However that is just your opinion it does not make it or you correct in this debate.



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Yes I can. It is factually wrong to say it is racist to make any remarks about nations or nationality. The UN is not a dictionary. It’s the UN opinion, and yours, and they’re both wrong.



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




It is factually wrong to say it is racist to make any remarks about nations or nationality.


Its not but if thats what you chose to believe then that is up to. If you wish to embrace a ignorant understanding of a socially complex construct such as racism by confusing it with a biological one despite it being clear that is wrong then thats up to you. Discrimination based on nationality is racist. FACT.

I can give you the information its up to you what you do with it.



The UN is not a dictionary.


I will always take a legal definition over a dictionary definition but if you want to pick the one that best suits your views, despite it being legally incorrect then feel free to do so.



it’s the UN opinion, and yours, and they’re both wrong.


No its the international agreed definition of racial discrimination, its not my opinion, its just the definition. Which has been signed by the United States of America back in the 1960's

Its you who is wrong on this and quite honestly its getting embarrassing to sit here as you continue to despite this.
edit on 9-3-2018 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin




I will always take a legal definition over a dictionary definition but if you want to pick the one that best suits your views, despite it being legally incorrect then feel free to do so.


Yes you will take any definition that agrees with you, while dismissing the scientific definitions.

The legal definitions of sexual deviancy once included homosexuality. Black people were legally considered 3/5ths of a person. I guess you have have agreed to that had you had been there. Embarrassing indeed.



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I wouldn't say zero.
Trump settled in court after 2 years without admitting guilt.

Let's be realistic here.
He's not Dr King and he's not Hitler.

Worst case scenario is he's granddad racist.
You can't deny the influence of the times you grow up in.



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




Yes you will take any definition that agrees with you, while dismissing the scientific definitions.


Keep digging....

Race Is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue (Scientific America)

The real issue here is that the definitions don't agree with you.



The legal definitions of sexual deviancy once included homosexuality. Black people were legally considered 3/5ths of a person. I guess you have have agreed to that had you had been there.


Well considering I have been fortunate enough to have never lived during such a oppressive time I do not know but there is a interesting lesson from this comment that you would do well to heed. Our understanding of such things change over time, just like how race was once thought of as being just about the colour of ones skin it is now recognised as being about much more than that, including ones nationality.



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I wouldn't say zero.
Trump settled in court after 2 years without admitting guilt.

Let's be realistic here.
He's not Dr King and he's not Hitler.

Worst case scenario is he's granddad racist.
You can't deny the influence of the times you grow up in.


Except you’re confusing The son with the father



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join