1746

I think it’s more on the lines of what Telefrog just posted. And the reason I even bring it up, as a Dutch outsider without any inside knowledge whatsoever, is that I feel it’s important to not treat every Trump voter in the way you’d treat the true, openly racist or bigotry voters, the real dangerous ones so to speak. I’m not saying that you’re wrong, and they are most certainly responsible for their choice, but still: you shouldn’t, IMO. Because if you do, you risk losing all the other Trump voters that hated what the man stands for but voted for him anyway, for whatever what (incomprehensible) reason. And you’ll probably really need all those people in the coming four years to soften the blows that are inevitably going to come.

However, I now realize this is probably more for the optimism thread, not for this one, and I’m also probably too soon with this. So I apologize for bringing it up…

1747

I agree with you here. I’ve said it on these forums before but I came to this realization after the election. I have to make these people understand that I’m not much different from themselves. Whether it’s through something as superficial as cheering for the same sports team or listening to the same kind of music. Anything that can help humanize myself in their eyes.

1748

1749

I’m so confused. Are you saying that Access Hollywood tape, the sexual assaults, the illegal donations by the Trump foundation was all known in the primaries. Could you provide some links? I followed this election very closely, and while I suspected he was a sexual predator, and had some shading business deals. I only heard rumors, I did see any hard evidence during the primaries. This stuff came out prior to right around the convention and in many case afterwords.

There were plenty of people at National Review, WSJ, and even a few at Fox and Salem media that would have been happy to break these stories in order to help Curz, Rubio, Kaisch, Bush win the election.

1750

Took me 2 seconds of googling.

https://origin-www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-15/trump-s-long-romance-with-russia

1751

Now, obviously, there were things that came out after the primaries @Strollen, on that you are correct. But the fact is, there was plenty of stuff out there before that should have sunk him.

Sad fact is many Americans are too stupid or lazy to care.

1752

This.

“The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

1753

Is that true? You really think that everyone who voted for Hillary “accepted” everything she stood for, or do you think they voted for her because she represented the party they believed needs to run the country, that she represents the party they they believe needs to select the next judges for the SCOTUS, that they believe she represents the party that isn’t the GOP.

Sorry, but I reject your idea. I think when you vote for what you think is the lesser of two evils you make compromises. You don’t accept, you vote despite of.

1754

I think what Timex is saying is that there’s no real difference between voting for someone “despite” something negative and voting for someone because you like that thing. Either way, you “accept” that trait to vote for that person.

You may completely detest Trump’s open misogyny and held your nose while voting for him because you think the GOP’s general policies are more your speed, but that means Trump’s misogyny had less weight to you than your other concerns. In those calculations pussy-grabbing, xenophobia, homophobia, and racism lost to whatever GOP issues hold more personal value.

1755

Yes, yes, yes. I think that caution was displaced by hubris, as seen by this video (schadenfreude for some, I’m sure): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT0Rjc6jKCg

1756

I think that’s very problematic, because it introduces a “god of the gaps”-like slippery slope into sociology. The definition must turn to natural science to tell us which generalization is fallacious and which might be accurate. There was the “Bell Curve” discussion about IQ, for example – what if it does turn out that some races have a lesser average IQ? What if other genetic factors are discovered which influence temperaments and affections? What was racist before suddenly ceases to be. And the actual racist cares least of all, because his animosity can latch now onto this, then onto some other characteristic, irrespective of its reality.

Phrased that way, yes. But “There are fewer highly intelligent women than highly intelligent men” seems to be accurate. Do you really think someone’s sexism hinges on the latest detail of brain research?

I think Albert Memmi’s approach is the correct one. We’re talking about the generalized and absolutized valuation of real or imagined differences for the benefit of the accuser, intended to justify his privileges or aggressions. Race is just one of the differences that can be singled out.

The key part, however, present in this definition but not in yours, is the valuation, which differentiates the racist from the segregationist and the ethnopluralist.

“Only Xs should judge Xs (and everyone else), because Xs are better at judging.” includes a valuation.

“Only Xs should judge Xs, because group X (and every other group) should govern itself.” does not include a valuation.

1757

Look I haven’t been following the whole argument, but what I can say is this:

Yes there is valuation, and the valuation is that self determination is right, and paternalism is wrong.

I’m not sure you appreciate where the atomism of the individual makes racism and sexism wrong. If each and every person is to be taken by his/her merit, then it is wrong to make arguments like:

He is black (or a woman), and
Statistically blacks (or women) have lower than average academic achievements
Therefore he/she must have lower than average academic achievements

It is wrong because it is a bad argument. It is a bad argument because even if all the premises are true (a big if, especially for the second premise), the conclusion does not follow because he/she has not been evaluated on his/her own merit. Even if all the premises are true, what you have in front of you could be at the upper end of the black/women academic achievement bell curve. Or at the very low end of the bell curve. Or whatever. The non-discriminatory approach is to evaluate the academic achievement of that particular person on his/her own merit, not relying on prejudice, or preconception.

1758

It’s really not problematic at all… it’s just the definition of racism.

While you may be able to imagine some edge case where folks are arguing about some contentious position which is not clearly defined by science, that’s not what we’re talking about here. In the case of trump, his racism was extremely clear. This is why folks like Paul Ryan called it the literal definition of racism.

If such things were actually true, then merely stating reality is not racist. Of course, they’re not, and have been shown to not be true.

If you like, you can extend the definition I gave to include “unsupported” statements as well. So making unsupported generalizations about individuals based on their race constitutes racism.

Saying black people have darker skin isn’t racism, because it’s simply an objective observation. But making some generalization about their abilities starts to cross over into racism.

Upon what do you base that statement?

Yes, there is a difference between something which is objectively provable, and a statement of opinion.

I’m not seeing how, even under your definition here, that Trump’s statements were not clearly racist.

1759

1760



1761

Higher variance != higher mean/median.

An analysis of mental test scores from six studies that used national probability samples provided evidence that although average sex differences have been generally small and stable over time, the test scores of males consistently have larger variance.

1762

Good thing nobody claimed that, then.

1763

They also didn’t claim that there are fewer highly intelligent women than highly intelligent men.

The evidence is merely that there are more men than women at the highest level of academic achievement. But this does not actually provide compelling evidence of your statement, as such an observation could be explained by any number of reasons. Indeed, one possible, perhaps even likely, explanation is gender bias.

There was a point where there were ZERO women in charge of fortune 500 companies. Or ZERO women as heads of state. But this wasn’t due to some inherent superiority of men in those roles, as much as it was due to a widely held perception that women simply couldn’t do such things.

1764

There are more smart men, AND more stupid men, by that study. You went from discussing if some subset of people have lesser average IQ to pointing out that one group has more variance than another? For any trait, you can be biased both ways, since that group over-represents both tails of the distribution.

I’m confused as to what you’re trying to get at with this line of thought.

1765

In other news, while I do not dispute Trump’s legitimate election, and don’t really know what the ultimate result of this would be, there is this:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//petition/provide-electoral-college-vote-mr-trumps-tax-returns-do-due-diligence-potential-conflicts-interest

It’s essentially a petition to the white house suggesting that they demand Trump release his financial data, and put his stuff into a blind trust, before ascending to the Presidency.

I’m pretty sure that Trump will just say, “No!” but whatever. I’d really like to see a ton of folks show that we actually do care about some degree of transparency, and if 100k folks sign, the Whitehouse at least has to acknowledge it.