The ends don’t justify the means when it comes to the President. If they do, it will always be a short-term benefit that becomes long-term negative.
“What this book presupposes is…”
No, I am just assuming of the two major candidates, one would help more people but say some racist things, and the other would help way fewer people but never say racist things.
Timex
3346
Yes, and yet you suggested that you could, and that he did.
I’m not just breaking your balls here, even though it might feel like i am. But you made a somewhat nonsensical defense of Trump, and here admit its nonsense. So I’m gonna call you on it.
But, I’ll address the substance if the comment:
While being a pointless hypothetical (since i don’t believe that Trump is doing this), the issue at hand is more complex. You could potentially evaluate things from the perspective of maximizing benefit by some metric, but this is going to be more complex than simply measuring the number of people who benefitted from a policy vs the number who got hurt. For instance, you could have a policy that have one person a dollar, and executed another… That policy would not be neutral simply because it helped one person and hurt another.
Menzo
3347
This is a dumb hypothetical. It’s meaningless. Trump isn’t helping more than he’s hurting, and he doesn’t just “say some racist things.” He is a full on 100% racist.
It’s not OK.
Nesrie
3348
He is. That’s why he spends his days talking about white culture and people being mean to him for saying racist things and making fun of black people dying. He’s a racist and an agitator.
So why do you guys keep encouraging him? We can get back to actual discussions when you ignore him.
Timex
3349
I kind of doubt that he’s a white nationalist. Instead, i suspect he has found himself in the unfortunate Patton of defending bad policies out of a misguided notion of partisanship.
It’s extremely hard to calculate whether Trump is helping more people in more meaningful ways than Hillary would have. If I ever claimed that I know for a fact Trump is better in this analysis, I retract it. I just think he comes out ahead.
Yes, it’s very hard to figure out. All I’m saying is that there can in theory be reasons why someone would support a president who has said arguably racist things. Similarly, there can be reasons for supporting a president who drove drunk and nearly killed someone, or who pressured subordinates into sexual relationships, etc — it would come down to thinking they are better for more people, in bigger ways, than their viable opponent.
Nesrie
3351
You don’t make fun of dead black people and their lives being put at risk because you don’t think of them being less than people. Even the term white culture is just a vague statement made by the alt-right that means basically nothing except anything not white is bad.
I was more making fun of your penchant for posting about the same type of stories over and over again, in response to your ridiculous criticism of me for daring to post in this forum with a dissenting view at all. And yeah, I think there’s an undiscerning aspect to a lot of coverage about black lives matter, which is evident in your post: anyone who dares criticize the “Movement” is automatically a white nationalist. You should learn what that term means by the way. It’s a bigger word than “racist.” But maybe you see things in terms of nations and wars and racial conflict, and I don’t. Hmm…
Menzo
3353
For someone who claims to NOT be a white nationalist, you certainly say things that they say and act like they act. Claiming it’s really black people who are racists is part of the playbook.
I don’t think whites deserve their own country! Isn’t that what it means? Or am I missing something. And I do think both white and black people can be racist.
Menzo
3355
You are clearly capable of using Google. But I’ll do it for you again this time.
Adherents of white nationalist groups believe that white identity should be the organizing principle of the countries that make up Western civilization. White nationalists advocate for policies to reverse changing demographics and the loss of an absolute, white majority. Ending non-white immigration, both legal and illegal, is an urgent priority — frequently elevated over other racist projects, such as ending multiculturalism and miscegenation — for white nationalists seeking to preserve white, racial hegemony.
In addition to their obsession with declining white birth rates, these themes comprise some of the most powerful propaganda that animates and drives the white nationalist movement. Adherents frequently cite Pat Buchanan’s 2001 book, The Death of the West, which argues that these declining white birth rates and an “immigrant invasion” will transform the United States into a third world nation by 2050, as the text responsible for their awakening, or “red pill.”
Some of that looks awfully familiar…
Nesrie
3356
And there is the question now hurry everyone, race too spin your wheels to explain something to him he won’t listen to so he can say he wants, claim these holy statements like live side by side, so long as they, this would be the non-whites, do what he says and knows their place.
Live side by side, he can’t even handle that here. There is one topic and he gravitated right to it to piss on it, and it’s not even one I started nor am I the only poster in it. He’s too lazy to even realize that.
Why do you say that?
Are you speaking in tongues?
Menzo
3358
LOL…
I would assume your next move will be to impeach the Southern Poverty Law Center since you are caught dead to rights on this one.
I think this is an interesting question, because the fact is that the Republican party is likely going to be self-consciously White Nationalist for a generation. Trumpism is the result of a demographic panic that is not going to go away quickly; the nativist strain has been building within the Republican party since it started to be adopted by southern rejectionists in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Act. Although it’s satisfying to say “shut up you ignorant racist fucks” the political conversation has to continue; Republicans are one of the two dominant political parties, and nativism is now the core of the party rather than a wing. The Democrats have to make the case that white identity politics is bad even for white people; that American politics can and should be more than a zero-sum competition between tribes. We can no longer assume that people will reject racism if we point it out with the appropriate moral opprobrium.
It will be easy for Democrats to fall into the trap that appealing to class conflict (soak the rich) will be an effective antidote for Republican fomenting of ethnic conflict. It’s just too easy to re-cast class conflict through a racial lens, and in the United States especially, there is no strong tradition of class-based solidarity.
I see. The easy first step here is the consistency test, as always. if a black person wants to appropriate rather than reject their African heritage, would you call them a black nationalist? Same for Asians etc? Why singling out whites, Europeans, etc.?
There’s also the question of what “white nationalist” means here–is the implication that as an advocate of European heritage and as an American, one is a white nationalist for America? Or that one supports the various nationalisms of Europe, typically associated with some mild to severe kind of white supremacism or at least white identity politics.
Nesrie
3361
That is not what this topic is about. That is not what most the topics are about that he keeps posting the same stuff over and over again in. It seems like if someone wants to go round and round with the local racist/white nationalist, maybe a topic for that should be made. It doesn’t need be recreated in every topic we have.
Do you identify as a black nationalist? Why or why not? Is that a good or a bad thing? If any other group is allowed to play identity politics, and only my group is excluded, why should i buy into this conceptual framework / public norm?
