Are people seriously and unironically defending Trump's remarks about the judge right now? Like how can you get more racist than claiming someone's race is preventing them from doing their job properly?
Are people seriously and unironically defending Trump's remarks about the judge right now? Like how can you get more racist than claiming someone's race is preventing them from doing their job properly?
What you fail to understand about my argument is, I'm not defending Trump. I believe his conclusion is mostly likely flawed, not racist.
Do you find anything about Donald Trump's statements on the matter morally objectionable? Yes or no?
So, you would say this is immoral and racist:
A Mexican can take Trumps immigration policy personally, and it may lead to making incorrect conclusions concerning other unrelated issues concerning Trump.
Why do black people only protest en masses when black people get shot?
You do not think them sharing the same skin color with the victim impacts their behavior?
You do not think the judge could possibly be biased becasue he shares the same skin color with a group Trump has targeted repeatedly? And it's racist to even consider it?
Then how could the situation be remedied to avoid Trump being able to accuse the judge of being biased? Because that is afterall the end goal, I assume you are after.
2). You realize that White Supremacist is someone who has "the belief that white people are superior to those of all other races". So since you are clearly pointing out it would be unfair that a black judge could preside over this individual, wouldn't it be true for anyone who didn't happen to be white?
Yes or no, a Mexican is more likely to take action against racism directed at Mexicans than racism directed at another race... Do you think Mexicans would be protesting as much as they are now if Trumps bigotry was only limited to Muslims? Answer my questions.
Let me try this again: Unless you can prove to us here that this judge was incapable of giving an unbiased decision, theorizing that because the judge was Mexican affected the outcome (or that Trump has the right to question this based on race, and not look an ********), you can't just come in here and accuse a judge of being unable to do his job. And this isn't a strawman, that is exactly what you are arguing: That the judge's race could be a factor, and Trump is not a racist for accusing a judge of being unable to do his job fairly because of his race.
No, I am not, and it is rather clear that I'm not saying this. You, on the other hand seem to think a Mexican judge is undeniably impervious from bias when judging a person who is racist against Mexicans. You continue to ignore that Trumps racial politics could potentially influence a judge, particularly one of Mexican decent. I think you need to start being honest instead of creating these straw man arguments. The potential exist, acknowledging this potential or pointing to potential bias is racist to you.
Of course I do. I assume any judge who hears a case can rule unbiased, as they can recuse themselves if they feel they can't, unless someone points out otherwise. Think about how ridiculous this would be if in a divorce case, a man argued that the judge was biased because the court sided with his ex-wife, and the judge happened to be a woman.
The entire argument is whether or not Trumps comments were racist, not whether or not the judge is biased. Pointing to someones ethnicity being a factor in their behavior is not necessarily racist, in context of Trump, with his immigration stance, its not out line to question whether or not the judge may be biased. Whether the judge is biased or not, is not really what we are discussing, you've continued to try and perpetrate this goal post shift.
It is what we are discussing because the only real reason Trump's comments who could be dismissed as not being racist would be if you could justify that the judge was legitimately biased. Let's solve this and strike racism from the dictionary. Would you agree that Trump's comment came from a place of prejudice?
It's racist to suggest that one's race determines one's outlook. It's not racist to suggest that one's background can influence one's outlook.
With regards to the recent shootings by (presumably white) police of black men, I don't see any problem with looking into whether they are racially motivated. They probably should. But to say that they must necessarily be racially motivated would be racist.
I see, so any tiny component of non-determinism, no matter how small, transforms a racist sentiment into a non-racist one. This is a new concept to me.
EDIT: Would you assert that this statement is therefore non-racist: "White people are on average several standard deviations more intelligent than black people, but on rare occasion, a black person can be a statistical outlier and achieve the same intelligence as white people."
No. Mexicans are not more likely to be biased than non-Mexicans.
Mexicans right now are more likely to be biased against Donald Trump than non-Mexicans. We're talking about one specific case, not all cases. Note that this does not determine that the judge must be biased against Trump.
I'll ask you the same question I asked bravesbaseball. Would Donald Trump, on average, be more likely to receive fair treatment in court if we made a rule that people with Mexican ancestry could not serve as judges in his cases?
It seems to me that both of your answers here are reflective of a belief that there are some set of experience-driven viewpoints which are "biased", and there are others which are not, despite also being experience-driven (I believe we agree that everyone's views are influenced by their experiences, Mexican or not). If we say that a Mexican judge, due to his experience as a Mexican is "more likely" to be biased, then we're assigning a normative legitimacy to non-Mexican experiences. Bias is a deviation from a norm, and you've selected to define the experiences and views of non-Mexican people as that norm. Suppose someone wanted to argue that it is instead the Mexican experiences and views that constitute the norm, and it is non-Mexicans who are more likely to be biased due to their distance from those experiences. How would you respond to that?
Just hold on for a second. I believe you've been rather consistently misrepresenting my view. You keep asking me questions and I keep answering them, but it's like we're spinning in circles. I'm sure it's unintentional.
So let's make this very simple:
1. If you say inflammatory things about a group of people, you are likely to negatively influence your standing among that group of people.
2. Donald Trump has said inflammatory things about Mexicans.
3. Those things have influenced many Mexicans to view him more negatively.
Then how could the situation be remedied to avoid Trump being able to accuse the judge of being biased? Because that is afterall the end goal, I assume you are after.
What? No where have I ever indicated the judge is biased. I do not think people talking about what they think, is a problem. That is the very definition of thought police. Do you seriously want to bring the first amendment in this?
2). You realize that White Supremacist is someone who has "the belief that white people are superior to those of all other races". So since you are clearly pointing out it would be unfair that a black judge could preside over this individual, wouldn't it be true for anyone who didn't happen to be white?
No. I am not pointing out it would be unfair. That is you beating a straw man.
Let me try this again: Unless you can prove to us here that this judge was incapable of giving an unbiased decision, theorizing that because the judge was Mexican affected the outcome (or that Trump has the right to question this based on race, and not look an ********), you can't just come in here and accuse a judge of being unable to do his job. And this isn't a strawman, that is exactly what you are arguing: That the judge's race could be a factor, and Trump is not a racist for accusing a judge of being unable to do his job fairly because of his race.
I'm not making a judgement on the judge. We are talking about whether or not Trumps comments are racist. I'm not accusing the judge of anything. It is possible for Trump to be incorrect about his conclusion and it not be racist. You seem to not understand the difference between could and is.
Its not hard to understand that Trump thinks he is being treated unfairly, correctly or incorrectly and he rationalized why he thinks he thinks he is being treated unfairly, pointing out his immigration policy and how he thinks that could impact a Hispanic judges decision making process. Similar to a hispanic deciding whether or not to protest, obviously they are more likely to protest Trump than Clinton, and its almost entirely becasue of Trumps immigration stance and his previous racist remarks. In other words, Hispanics have taken action, precisely because they take comments from Trump as a direct threat to them as Mexicans. Whether it impacted this judge or not, no one will ever know the answer.
It's not racist for a black person to think he was treated unfairly becasue his jury was all white.
Do you find anything about Donald Trump's statements on the matter morally objectionable? Yes or no?
So, you would say this is immoral and racist:
A Mexican can take Trumps immigration policy personally, and it may lead to making incorrect conclusions concerning other unrelated issues concerning Trump.
Do you find anything about Donald Trump's statements on the matter morally objectionable? Yes or no?
Please answer the question.
Do you find anything about Donald Trump's statements on the matter morally objectionable? Yes or no?
So, you would say this is immoral and racist:
A Mexican can take Trumps immigration policy personally, and it may lead to making incorrect conclusions concerning other unrelated issues concerning Trump.
Do you find anything about Donald Trump's statements on the matter morally objectionable? Yes or no?
Please answer the question.
No, there is nothing morally objectionable about thinking someone is biased. My answer to this question was obvious. How about you defend your position. I'm not the one making the claim of racism here. The issue it not whether i think it's racist, but rather if his statement is racist. Seriously, if the argument was so strong, you all would not have to revert to these logical fallacies. My morals is not what is being discussed. It's not a moral question anyways. Stop trying to shift the goal post. Whether or not racism is immoral is immaterial to whether or not his statement was racist.
Just hold on for a second. I believe you've been rather consistently misrepresenting my view. You keep asking me questions and I keep answering them, but it's like we're spinning in circles. I'm sure it's unintentional.
So let's make this very simple:
1. If you say inflammatory things about a group of people, you are likely to negatively influence your standing among that group of people.
2. Donald Trump has said inflammatory things about Mexicans.
3. Those things have influenced many Mexicans to view him more negatively.
Do you disagree with any of that?
I'm not sure that I agree with #3. "More negatively" than what or who? It sounds like you're again burying a normative value judgment in favor of the views and experiences of non-Mexicans in there.
Asked and answered, at this point you are just repeating this straw man, for the third time.
It has certainly been asked. I disagree that it has been answered.
I'm sorry you do not like or understand the answer. Too bad you cant articulate your issue with my answer, other than ignore it and repeat the same questions over and over... that appears to be your M.O. We all know what would happen if I repeated my self like you have in this thread.
I'm sorry you do not like or understand the answer. Too bad you cant really articulate your issue with my answer, other than ignore it and repeat the same questions over and over....we all know what would happen if I repeated my self like you have in this thread.
You've not given an answer. You've only dodged the question and refused to answer it, so there is no answer for me to articulate an issue with.
I'm sorry you do not like or understand the answer. Too bad you cant really articulate your issue with my answer, other than ignore it and repeat the same questions over and over....we all know what would happen if I repeated my self like you have in this thread.
You've not given an answer. You've only dodged the question and refused to answer it, so there is no answer for me to articulate an issue with.
You keep insisting I'm saying a Mexican is more or less biased than another judge. I'm not saying that. How many times do I have to say this for you to underhand? That answers your question directly. Your premise is flawed. What do you not understand about that answer that you keep having to ask the question, and basically stonewall?
You keep insisting I'm saying a Mexican is more or less biased than another judge. I'm not saying that. How many times do I have to say this for you to underhand? That answers your question directly. Your premise is flawed. What do you not understand about that answer that you keep having to ask the question, and basically stonewall?
If you're not saying that a Mexican judge is more or less biased than another judge, than you're arguing a different point than Donald Trump which is unrelated to the topic here. If that's what you're doing, I don't really see the point in responding to you further.
It's not racist to think a judge that belongs to group A could develop a bias against person B, for persons B's remarks about group A.
So would you say the judge belonging to group A is "more biased" against person B than another judge not of group A?
'
What is wrong with my logic. Is it incorrect? Why?
EDIT: This is my answer BTW
Racial bias exist in everyone, consciously and subconsciously.. It manifest in multiple different ways. Some people are aware of theirs and adapt their thinking, some people will ignore this bias, others simply are not aware of their bias. The entire argument behind systemic racism is made through numbers, more aptly, disproportionate numbers. It's generally thought the justice system is racist, and the justice system is made up of mostly white people. Hardly can anyone point to a specific white person being racist, but rather they lean on the unseen phenomenon of racial bias of white people which contributes to the disproportional results. The odds that 1 in 12 white jurors has an unchecked, hidden racial bias is pretty high, I do not think we should ignore that. Nor should we call it "wrong" to assume someones ethnicity impacts their partiality, as it most certainly does. The only question is, to what degree. http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/debate/624050-donald-trumps-presidency?comment=4264
Trump did not say all judges from group A are biased. So your question about judges outside of group A is immaterial to determining whether or not Trumps response about this judge is racist. It's possible another judge from group A to rule differently than this judge, in a more or less biased way as well.
Trump did not say all judges from group A are biased. So your question about judges outside of group A is immaterial to determining whether or not Trumps response about this judge is racist. It's possible another judge from group A to rule differently as well.
No, the question of judges outside of group A is critical. Because what Trump wants is to replace the Mexican judge with a non-Mexican judge. Trump's thesis is that Mexican-ness indicates (be it deterministic or probabilistic indication) a level of bias against him greater than that of non-Mexicans. If he did not believe that Mexicans were more likely to be biased against him than non-Mexicans, then he wouldn't have said "He's Mexican".
The implied comparison of Mexicans to non-Mexicans is the part that makes it racist. If Trump's argument were simply this one particular judge is biased against me because he doesn't like the things I say, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
No, the question of judges outside of group A is critical. Because what Trump wants is to replace the Mexican judge with a non-Mexican judge.
1. This has nothing to do with whether or not Trump remarks were racist. 2. Cite. 3. You are ignoring my logic problem, I'm certain I win the debate unless you can intelligently debunk it. What do you disagree about that premise I asserted?
1. This has nothing to do with whether or not Trump remarks were racist. 2. Cite. 3. You are ignoring my logic problem, I'm certain I win the debate unless you can intelligently debunk it. What do you disagree about that premise I asserted?
If Trump's reason that he believes that this judge is biased is that "he's Mexican", it stands to reason that if you replaced him with another judge for which "he's Mexican" is also true, then nothing would have changed.
The fact that another judge, Mexican or not, may rule differently is immaterial. As I replied to ljoss, a probabilistic argument that Mexicans are more biased against Trump on average is no less racist than a deterministic argument that all Mexicans are necessarily biased against Trump.
It boils down to this: either you think the judge being Mexican is a relevant factor in how likely he is to be biased against Trump, or not. If your answer is that Mexican-ness has a causative association with being biased against Trump, that's racism. If your answer is that it has no such association, then Trump's statement that he's Mexican is just as nonsensical and irrelevant as if Trump had said "his last name begins with a C" as his reason.
1. This has nothing to do with whether or not Trump remarks were racist. 2. Cite. 3. You are ignoring my logic problem, I'm certain I win the debate unless you can intelligently debunk it. What do you disagree about that premise I asserted?
If Trump's reason that he believes that this judge is biased is that "he's Mexican", it stands to reason that if you replaced him with another judge for which "he's Mexican" is also true, then nothing would have changed.
You are operating in a vacuum. You are ignoring Trumps repeated remarks about Mexican immigrants, that could invoke a response from the judge, even subconsciously. In almost all comments from Trump about this issues has included him referencing his immigration policy. You are also ignoring Trumps perception of hostility from the judge.
It boils down to this: either you think the judge being Mexican is a relevant factor in how likely he is to be biased against Trump, or not.
If you belonged to group A, and person B made disparaging remarks about group C, do you think you would react any different if person B made those remarks about group A?
I think its a very human thing to have an personal attachment when someone attacks your specific group that a person not in that group would not necessarily have. .
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What you fail to understand about my argument is, I'm not defending Trump. I believe his conclusion is mostly likely flawed, not racist.
So, you would say this is immoral and racist:
A Mexican can take Trumps immigration policy personally, and it may lead to making incorrect conclusions concerning other unrelated issues concerning Trump.
You do not think them sharing the same skin color with the victim impacts their behavior?
You do not think the judge could possibly be biased becasue he shares the same skin color with a group Trump has targeted repeatedly? And it's racist to even consider it?
Then how could the situation be remedied to avoid Trump being able to accuse the judge of being biased? Because that is afterall the end goal, I assume you are after.
2). You realize that White Supremacist is someone who has "the belief that white people are superior to those of all other races". So since you are clearly pointing out it would be unfair that a black judge could preside over this individual, wouldn't it be true for anyone who didn't happen to be white?
Let me try this again: Unless you can prove to us here that this judge was incapable of giving an unbiased decision, theorizing that because the judge was Mexican affected the outcome (or that Trump has the right to question this based on race, and not look an ********), you can't just come in here and accuse a judge of being unable to do his job. And this isn't a strawman, that is exactly what you are arguing: That the judge's race could be a factor, and Trump is not a racist for accusing a judge of being unable to do his job fairly because of his race.
Of course I do. I assume any judge who hears a case can rule unbiased, as they can recuse themselves if they feel they can't, unless someone points out otherwise. Think about how ridiculous this would be if in a divorce case, a man argued that the judge was biased because the court sided with his ex-wife, and the judge happened to be a woman.
It is what we are discussing because the only real reason Trump's comments who could be dismissed as not being racist would be if you could justify that the judge was legitimately biased. Let's solve this and strike racism from the dictionary. Would you agree that Trump's comment came from a place of prejudice?
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Just hold on for a second. I believe you've been rather consistently misrepresenting my view. You keep asking me questions and I keep answering them, but it's like we're spinning in circles. I'm sure it's unintentional.
So let's make this very simple:
1. If you say inflammatory things about a group of people, you are likely to negatively influence your standing among that group of people.
2. Donald Trump has said inflammatory things about Mexicans.
3. Those things have influenced many Mexicans to view him more negatively.
Do you disagree with any of that?
What? No where have I ever indicated the judge is biased. I do not think people talking about what they think, is a problem. That is the very definition of thought police. Do you seriously want to bring the first amendment in this?
No. I am not pointing out it would be unfair. That is you beating a straw man.
I'm not making a judgement on the judge. We are talking about whether or not Trumps comments are racist. I'm not accusing the judge of anything. It is possible for Trump to be incorrect about his conclusion and it not be racist. You seem to not understand the difference between could and is.
It's not racist for a black person to think he was treated unfairly becasue his jury was all white.
Do you find anything about Donald Trump's statements on the matter morally objectionable? Yes or no?
Please answer the question.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
No, there is nothing morally objectionable about thinking someone is biased. My answer to this question was obvious. How about you defend your position. I'm not the one making the claim of racism here. The issue it not whether i think it's racist, but rather if his statement is racist. Seriously, if the argument was so strong, you all would not have to revert to these logical fallacies. My morals is not what is being discussed. It's not a moral question anyways. Stop trying to shift the goal post. Whether or not racism is immoral is immaterial to whether or not his statement was racist.
Now answer my question.
I'm not sure that I agree with #3. "More negatively" than what or who? It sounds like you're again burying a normative value judgment in favor of the views and experiences of non-Mexicans in there.
It has certainly been asked. I disagree that it has been answered.
I'm sorry you do not like or understand the answer. Too bad you cant articulate your issue with my answer, other than ignore it and repeat the same questions over and over... that appears to be your M.O. We all know what would happen if I repeated my self like you have in this thread.
You've not given an answer. You've only dodged the question and refused to answer it, so there is no answer for me to articulate an issue with.
You keep insisting I'm saying a Mexican is more or less biased than another judge. I'm not saying that. How many times do I have to say this for you to underhand? That answers your question directly. Your premise is flawed. What do you not understand about that answer that you keep having to ask the question, and basically stonewall?
If you're not saying that a Mexican judge is more or less biased than another judge, than you're arguing a different point than Donald Trump which is unrelated to the topic here. If that's what you're doing, I don't really see the point in responding to you further.
Person B makes insulting remarks about group A.
It's not racist to think a judge that belongs to group A could develop a bias against person B, for persons B's remarks about group A.
So would you say the judge belonging to group A is "more biased" against person B than another judge not of group A?
What is wrong with my logic. Is it incorrect? Why?
There is no way to tell, could be.
Trump did not say all judges from group A are biased. So your question about judges outside of group A is immaterial to determining whether or not Trumps response about this judge is racist. It's possible another judge from group A to rule differently than this judge, in a more or less biased way as well.
No, the question of judges outside of group A is critical. Because what Trump wants is to replace the Mexican judge with a non-Mexican judge. Trump's thesis is that Mexican-ness indicates (be it deterministic or probabilistic indication) a level of bias against him greater than that of non-Mexicans. If he did not believe that Mexicans were more likely to be biased against him than non-Mexicans, then he wouldn't have said "He's Mexican".
The implied comparison of Mexicans to non-Mexicans is the part that makes it racist. If Trump's argument were simply this one particular judge is biased against me because he doesn't like the things I say, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
1. This has nothing to do with whether or not Trump remarks were racist. 2. Cite. 3. You are ignoring my logic problem, I'm certain I win the debate unless you can intelligently debunk it. What do you disagree about that premise I asserted?
If Trump's reason that he believes that this judge is biased is that "he's Mexican", it stands to reason that if you replaced him with another judge for which "he's Mexican" is also true, then nothing would have changed.
The fact that another judge, Mexican or not, may rule differently is immaterial. As I replied to ljoss, a probabilistic argument that Mexicans are more biased against Trump on average is no less racist than a deterministic argument that all Mexicans are necessarily biased against Trump.
It boils down to this: either you think the judge being Mexican is a relevant factor in how likely he is to be biased against Trump, or not. If your answer is that Mexican-ness has a causative association with being biased against Trump, that's racism. If your answer is that it has no such association, then Trump's statement that he's Mexican is just as nonsensical and irrelevant as if Trump had said "his last name begins with a C" as his reason.
You are operating in a vacuum. You are ignoring Trumps repeated remarks about Mexican immigrants, that could invoke a response from the judge, even subconsciously. In almost all comments from Trump about this issues has included him referencing his immigration policy. You are also ignoring Trumps perception of hostility from the judge.
If you belonged to group A, and person B made disparaging remarks about group C, do you think you would react any different if person B made those remarks about group A?
I think its a very human thing to have an personal attachment when someone attacks your specific group that a person not in that group would not necessarily have. .