The problem is that "racist" is such a loaded word that it's not as meaningful as it is simply derogatory. If you call someone a racist, they don't hear, "It appears that you hold beliefs about broad groups of people which aren't in line with what we know scientifically," they just hear, "You're a terrible person."
Well, clearly that's not true. Racist does indeed mean the former. Yes, we do recognize these days that the former means the latter, but the term racist obviously has not lost all meaning.
Again, can we move the "we need to be sensitive to those who are insensitive about other people because the people who dehumanize other people might get their feelings hurt" discussion to a different thread? This has gone on enough pages to merit its own discussion, and the thread is about the post-Donald Trump election situation as a whole.
Again, can we move the "we need to be sensitive to those who are insensitive about other people because the people who dehumanize other people might get their feelings hurt" discussion to a different thread? This has gone on enough pages to merit its own discussion, and the thread is about the post-Donald Trump election situation as a whole.
Donald Trump, a man who holds beliefs about broad groups of people which aren't in line with what we know scientifically, has appointed Steve Bannon, another man who holds beliefs about broad groups of people which aren't in line with what we know scientifically as his chief strategist. He has proposed Jeff Sessions, who holds beliefs about broad groups of people which aren't in line with what we know scientifically, as his attorney general, and has added Kris Kobach, who holds beliefs about broad groups of people which aren't in line with what we know scientifically to his transition team. Men who hold beliefs about broad groups of people which aren't in line with what we know scientifically like David Duke are over the moon with these appointments.
Perhaps, but not necessarily to persuade the person you're debating with. In many cases, it's to persuade the people listening to or reading the debate.
You don't think Donald and Hillary were trying to change each others' minds, do you?
If racism is an idea, then when you're talking about racism, you're "focusing on the ideas". I don't see how this could be any simpler.
"Focusing on the ideas" isn't always enough to avoid the ad hominem fallacy. The ad hominem fallacy is when you dismiss a person's position by invoking irrelevant facts about them, facts which may (and in practice, usually do) include other positions they hold. "Hitler's Autobahn idea is horrible because Hitler is racist" is an ad hominem fallacy, for instance. As is any time a Democrat rejects an idea out of hand because it comes from a Republican or vice versa. I would venture that, if not necessarily in rhetoric than at least in cognition, ad hominem is one of the most endemic fallacies in our political culture.
The problem is that "racist" is such a loaded word that it's not as meaningful as it is simply derogatory. If you call someone a racist, they don't hear, "It appears that you hold beliefs about broad groups of people which aren't in line with what we know scientifically," they just hear, "You're a terrible person."
Well, clearly that's not true. Racist does indeed mean the former. Yes, we do recognize these days that the former means the latter, but the term racist obviously has not lost all meaning.
What do you mean, that's not true? I never said that "terrible person" is the definition of "racist," I said that's often how people interpret it. I also didn't say it had lost all meaning.
Again, can we move the "we need to be sensitive to those who are insensitive about other people because the people who dehumanize other people might get their feelings hurt" discussion to a different thread? This has gone on enough pages to merit its own discussion, and the thread is about the post-Donald Trump election situation as a whole.
I would be in favor of this.
Although, I don't agree with your characterization of the issue. I just think that being provocative is counterproductive. It's not about sparing anyone's feelings.
God forbid anyone actually have to confront the terribleness of their beliefs.
You're missing the point. Don't you think there's any value in trying to avoid inflammatory language with someone who disagrees with you, even if you're right?
Donald Trump, a man who holds beliefs about broad groups of people which aren't in line with what we know scientifically, has appointed Steve Bannon, another man who holds beliefs about broad groups of people which aren't in line with what we know scientifically as his chief strategist. He has proposed Jeff Sessions, who holds beliefs about broad groups of people which aren't in line with what we know scientifically, as his attorney general, and has added Kris Kobach, who holds beliefs about broad groups of people which aren't in line with what we know scientifically to his transition team. Men who hold beliefs about broad groups of people which aren't in line with what we know scientifically like David Duke are over the moon with these appointments.
Am I doing it right?
Depends on what you're trying to do. If you're trying to demonstrate an understanding of my point, then no.
I never said we can't ever use the word "racist." I said that it may be pragmatic to avoid using that word when confronting someone who you believe is racist.
Most people don't think they're racist. I'm a pretty liberal person, and I don't think I'm at all racist, but I'm sure there's another liberal who's sufficiently extreme in his beliefs that he thinks I am. If this person wants to argue with something I said, and they start off with "that's racist" or more succinctly, "you're racist," I'm not going to be very inclined to hear this person out.
You're missing the point. Don't you think there's any value in trying to avoid inflammatory language with someone who disagrees with you, even if you're right?
No, I think there's value in being honest and frank. I think there's value in openly evaluating someone's position. I think tip-toeing around the truth is exactly the wrong way to go about things.
Depends on what you're trying to do. If you're trying to demonstrate an understanding of my point, then no.
I never said we can't ever use the word "racist." I said that it may be pragmatic to avoid using that word when confronting someone who you believe is racist.
Most people don't think they're racist. I'm a pretty liberal person, and I don't think I'm at all racist, but I'm sure there's another liberal who's sufficiently extreme in his beliefs that he thinks I am. If this person wants to argue with something I said, and they start off with "that's racist" or more succinctly, "you're racist," I'm not going to be very inclined to hear this person out.
If someone is racist, and doesn't think they're racist, you're not going to remedy that by not using the word.
If racism is an idea, then when you're talking about racism, you're "focusing on the ideas". I don't see how this could be any simpler.
"Focusing on the ideas" isn't always enough to avoid the ad hominem fallacy. The ad hominem fallacy is when you dismiss a person's position by invoking irrelevant facts about them, facts which may (and in practice, usually do) include other positions they hold. "Hitler's Autobahn idea is horrible because Hitler is racist" is an ad hominem fallacy, for instance. As is any time a Democrat rejects an idea out of hand because it comes from a Republican or vice versa. I would venture that, if not necessarily in rhetoric than at least in cognition, ad hominem is one of the most endemic fallacies in our political culture.
Sure. I don't think that's the sort of usage that anyone here is talking about, though.
I think you're more likely to remedy it by not using that word than you will by using it, though I don't think the use of the word either way is an absolute deal breaker for most. I don't really think it matters here though, I'd save the not calling people racist bit for people who voted for Trump on economic concerns, not Trump himself.
This entire like half-a-page reminds me of a comment one of my flatmates made one time: "racist is the n-word for white people" and I was like "I thought that was cracker.".
Whatever. More directly relevant: George W. Bush's ethics lawyer has pointed out that the USA has a number of conflict-of-interest laws regarding presidential behavior, and Trump having any connection to his former financial empire breaks most of them because it's possible someone could bribe him through them. It's called the Emoluments Clause, and it might get Trump impeached.
This entire like half-a-page reminds me of a comment one of my flatmates made one time: "racist is the n-word for white people" and I was like "I thought that was cracker.".
Also "honky," but yes, this discussion really is that ridiculous.
Whatever. More directly relevant: George W. Bush's ethics lawyer has pointed out that the USA has a number of conflict-of-interest laws regarding presidential behavior, and Trump having any connection to his former financial empire breaks most of them because it's possible someone could bribe him through them. It's called the Emoluments Clause, and it might get Trump impeached.
Fantastic.
Let us also meditate on the fact that we're talking about impeaching Trump before he even takes office.
Let us also meditate on the fact that we're talking about impeaching Trump before he even takes office.
It's at this point that I really wonder if this thread has really run it's course. The election has been over for almost for two weeks. We're really not discussing the election results themselves at this point because for the most part the media has moved on to the president elect's transition and as you so... sarcastically(?)... point out, Trump's actions. I'm not sure how you want the reader (me) to interpret this. Would you say more?
Whatever. More directly relevant: George W. Bush's ethics lawyer has pointed out that the USA has a number of conflict-of-interest laws regarding presidential behavior, and Trump having any connection to his former financial empire breaks most of them because it's possible someone could bribe him through them. It's called the Emoluments Clause, and it might get Trump impeached.
Fantastic.
Let us also meditate on the fact that we're talking about impeaching Trump before he even takes office.
Of course, then we'd have Pence as president, who isn't much better.
You're missing the point. Don't you think there's any value in trying to avoid inflammatory language with someone who disagrees with you, even if you're right?
No, I think there's value in being honest and frank. I think there's value in openly evaluating someone's position. I think tip-toeing around the truth is exactly the wrong way to go about things.
I certainly don't disagree here. All I'm saying is I think there are some corner cases where being honest and frank can be perceived as a personal attack.
It seems like everyone who disagrees with me thinks I'm saying that racists are the real victims, and we need to make sure we don't hurt their feelings or something. Which is absolutely not what I'm saying. I'm saying that calling someone a racist, whether they are or not, just puts them into total defense mode and they probably won't be willing to engage with you.
Depends on what you're trying to do. If you're trying to demonstrate an understanding of my point, then no.
I never said we can't ever use the word "racist." I said that it may be pragmatic to avoid using that word when confronting someone who you believe is racist.
Most people don't think they're racist. I'm a pretty liberal person, and I don't think I'm at all racist, but I'm sure there's another liberal who's sufficiently extreme in his beliefs that he thinks I am. If this person wants to argue with something I said, and they start off with "that's racist" or more succinctly, "you're racist," I'm not going to be very inclined to hear this person out.
If someone is racist, and doesn't think they're racist, you're not going to remedy that by not using the word.
Do you think you're really going to reach peope by calling them racist? I feel like we tried that, and it just strengthened their support of Trump.
Again, I think my previous example of some far-left activist is pretty good here. If someone thinks what you said was racist, how would you like them to inform you? If I'm a good enough mood, I might be willing to hear someone out who calls me a racist. I try to be open-minded and listen to people. But I think it's a show of bad faith if someone's opening volley is, "That's racist!"
This entire like half-a-page reminds me of a comment one of my flatmates made one time: "racist is the n-word for white people" and I was like "I thought that was cracker.".
That's really funny, and I think it's kind of true. And that's problematic.
Sorry if I'm derailing this thread at all, but I think it's an important issue.
I certainly don't disagree here. All I'm saying is I think there are some corner cases where being honest and frank can be perceived as a personal attack.
It seems like everyone who disagrees with me thinks I'm saying that racists are the real victims, and we need to make sure we don't hurt their feelings or something. Which is absolutely not what I'm saying. I'm saying that calling someone a racist, whether they are or not, just puts them into total defense mode and they probably won't be willing to engage with you.
Do you think you're really going to reach peope by calling them racist? I feel like we tried that, and it just strengthened their support of Trump.
Again, I think my previous example of some far-left activist is pretty good here. If someone thinks what you said was racist, how would you like them to inform you? If I'm a good enough mood, I might be willing to hear someone out who calls me a racist. I try to be open-minded and listen to people. But I think it's a show of bad faith if someone's opening volley is, "That's racist!"
Yes, you'll get pushback if you point out that someone's position is racist. But the solution is not to avoid pointing that out - that's just giving up before you even start. If someone's racism is never challenged, they're not going to magically abandon those beliefs - it's just going to further entrench them with the idea that those positions are acceptable.
Show of hands: Who honestly think Trump will be impeached?
Now all of you under the age of 12 put your hands down.
While there is technically always a chance that a president will be impeached, heck the Republicans bluffed mentioned the possibility almost every day through Barack Obama's second term, Donald Trump is a little unique in this case, so if a chance arises, the Congress might actually jump on it.
1. Donald Trump's entering the presidency historically unpopular. This is not a real reason to impeach anyone from office, but it needs to be laid out in the forefront because this reason enables all the other real speculations. He's even not all that popular to the Republicans he carried to victory as well.
2. Donald Trump is coming across as not knowing what he's going to do or how to do it, and if that's true, it's not that difficult to imagine a situation where Donald Trump inadvertently commits an impeachable action.
3. Donald Trump could deliberately commit an impeachable act under the hubris that he would not be impeached. There's a pattern of behavior in Donald Trump's history of him and his businesses thinking he/they are above the law. For example, needing to be sued twice for refusing to house African Americans, Trump University, allegations of sexual misconduct that even if half are proven true would date back decades, barging into a pageant dressing room, refusing to pay contractors for their work, and funnelling his campaign funds seemingly excessively into his business ventures. This is slightly different than accidentally committing an impeachable offense.
4. Donald Trump is filling his cabinet with controversial positions. What this means is that Donald Trump is surrounding himself with people that appear to encourage some of the qualities in Donald Trump that people do not like. This is natural; people surround themselves with people that agree with them. My concern is that tied with Trump's appearance to try to spin everything as either praising or attacking him personally would create a bubble and insulate himself from constructive criticism. That's bad. It helps create an environment for something like 2. or 3. to take place. Also, I watched the bubble on the left pop on election night. A bubble like that popping in the White House would be just as a big of a culture shock.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
I certainly don't disagree here. All I'm saying is I think there are some corner cases where being honest and frank can be perceived as a personal attack.
It seems like everyone who disagrees with me thinks I'm saying that racists are the real victims, and we need to make sure we don't hurt their feelings or something. Which is absolutely not what I'm saying. I'm saying that calling someone a racist, whether they are or not, just puts them into total defense mode and they probably won't be willing to engage with you.
Do you think you're really going to reach peope by calling them racist? I feel like we tried that, and it just strengthened their support of Trump.
Again, I think my previous example of some far-left activist is pretty good here. If someone thinks what you said was racist, how would you like them to inform you? If I'm a good enough mood, I might be willing to hear someone out who calls me a racist. I try to be open-minded and listen to people. But I think it's a show of bad faith if someone's opening volley is, "That's racist!"
Yes, you'll get pushback if you point out that someone's position is racist. But the solution is not to avoid pointing that out - that's just giving up before you even start. If someone's racism is never challenged, they're not going to magically abandon those beliefs - it's just going to further entrench them with the idea that those positions are acceptable.
But you are just presenting the situation as if you can't challenge their racist without explocitly calling them racist. I very much disagree- most importantly, as I said earlier, you can level the accusation at their claims.
It's a simple difference that can change the tone of the argument greatly- 'you're racist' vs 'that's racist'. One is personal and one is not.
Also as I said earlier I think this makes the argument more focused on the point at hand in being easier to relate and substantiate.
While there is technically always a chance that a president will be impeached, heck the Republicans bluffed mentioned the possibility almost every day through Barack Obama's second term, Donald Trump is a little unique in this case, so if a chance arises, the Congress might actually jump on it.
But you're forgetting that Congress has a Republican majority. The long and the short of it is that to be impeached and convicted, Trump would have to do something not just arguably against the law, but clearly and absolutely indefensible even for stalwart partisans. Remember, Bill Clinton was acquitted of perjury, when there was no doubt that he did it, and that was two decades ago. And Trump has done a lot of shady things in his seventy years, but he has also never been convicted of a felony. He's not just used to getting away with stuff, he's good at it. So basically, I would not put money on a Pence presidency.
But you are just presenting the situation as if you can't challenge their racist without explocitly calling them racist. I very much disagree- most importantly, as I said earlier, you can level the accusation at their claims.
It's a simple difference that can change the tone of the argument greatly- 'you're racist' vs 'that's racist'. One is personal and one is not.
Also as I said earlier I think this makes the argument more focused on the point at hand in being easier to relate and substantiate.
The post I was responding to said, "But I think it's a show of bad faith if someone's opening volley is, "That's racist!", and your counterpoint is "yeah, but what if you say "that's racist"?".
But you are just presenting the situation as if you can't challenge their racist without explocitly calling them racist. I very much disagree- most importantly, as I said earlier, you can level the accusation at their claims.
It's a simple difference that can change the tone of the argument greatly- 'you're racist' vs 'that's racist'. One is personal and one is not.
Also as I said earlier I think this makes the argument more focused on the point at hand in being easier to relate and substantiate.
The post I was responding to said, "But I think it's a show of bad faith if someone's opening volley is, "That's racist!", and your counterpoint is "yeah, but what if you say "that's racist"?".
Give me a break, dude.
It's a borderline example of my point. Somewhat of an oversight- but my point remains. The conservation was about calling a person racist and not that specific phrase.
It's a borderline example of my point. Somewhat of an oversight- but my point remains. The conservation was about calling a person racist and not that specific phrase.
Is your point that saying "that's racist" is fine, or that saying "that's racist" is counterproductive? I no longer understand where you stand on that.
Mike Pence doesn't rule out water-boarding specifically, torture generally, says “We're going to have a president again who will never say what we'll never do”. [link]
**** Mike Pence.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
While there is technically always a chance that a president will be impeached, heck the Republicans bluffed mentioned the possibility almost every day through Barack Obama's second term, Donald Trump is a little unique in this case, so if a chance arises, the Congress might actually jump on it.
But you're forgetting that Congress has a Republican majority. The long and the short of it is that to be impeached and convicted, Trump would have to do something not just arguably against the law, but clearly and absolutely indefensible even for stalwart partisans. Remember, Bill Clinton was acquitted of perjury, when there was no doubt that he did it, and that was two decades ago. And Trump has done a lot of shady things in his seventy years, but he has also never been convicted of a felony. He's not just used to getting away with stuff, he's good at it. So basically, I would not put money on a Pence presidency.
I wouldn't either (and personally, I'd rather not find out Whether or not I'd dread a Pence presidency more than Trump presidency. There's a reason Pence's nickname is "Insurance Policy" on the left).
Michale Moore and the guy who developed the "Keys to the White House" prediction model have predicted a Trump impeachment. I suspect the reason is because the bar for discarding Trump as head of the Party and the country at least seems lower than it has looking back on previous presidencies. *Then again, all most people really have to go on in recent memory is Barack Obama, and the GOP cried wolf on him way too many times while ignoring his real issues.*
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
The point I wanted to make is that it's not necessary to actually flat-out state that they're racist/sexist/etc to argue with their argument.
I'm simply saying that one should apply very simple and commonly used argumentative technique-namely, don't put the other fellow on the defensive or otherwise give them an opportunity to put up walls if you have any intent whatsoever in actually persuading them.
The point you WERE making was, "If you have any intent whatsoever to eventually persuade that person that he/she indeed is a racist", but apparently you've already given up on that.
That was actually a mistake on my part; I should have written "if you have any intent whatsoever in actually persuading them that they're racist".
Mr. Spencer’s after-dinner speech began with a polemic against the “mainstream media,” before he briefly paused. “Perhaps we should refer to them in the original German?” he said.
The audience immediately screamed back, “Lugenpresse,” reviving a Nazi-era word that means “lying press.”
Mr. Spencer suggested that the news media had been critical of Mr. Trump throughout the campaign in order to protect Jewish interests. He mused about the political commentators who gave Mr. Trump little chance of winning.
“One wonders if these people are people at all, or instead soulless golem,” he said, referring to a Jewish fable about the golem, a clay giant that a rabbi brings to life to protect the Jews.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
Whilst Trump is aiming to fill his cabinet with assorted ne'erdowells and scoundrels of assorted stripes, how likely are they to actually take up the posts? They have to go through assorted commitees before they are eventually confirmed in office don't they?
I know the both houses are firmly in control of the Republicans at the moment but with some of the names coming out should we be surprised if they don't have a bumpy ride through the houses/commitees.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Again, can we move the "we need to be sensitive to those who are insensitive about other people because the people who dehumanize other people might get their feelings hurt" discussion to a different thread? This has gone on enough pages to merit its own discussion, and the thread is about the post-Donald Trump election situation as a whole.
Donald Trump, a man who holds beliefs about broad groups of people which aren't in line with what we know scientifically, has appointed Steve Bannon, another man who holds beliefs about broad groups of people which aren't in line with what we know scientifically as his chief strategist. He has proposed Jeff Sessions, who holds beliefs about broad groups of people which aren't in line with what we know scientifically, as his attorney general, and has added Kris Kobach, who holds beliefs about broad groups of people which aren't in line with what we know scientifically to his transition team. Men who hold beliefs about broad groups of people which aren't in line with what we know scientifically like David Duke are over the moon with these appointments.
Am I doing it right?
You don't think Donald and Hillary were trying to change each others' minds, do you?
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What do you mean, that's not true? I never said that "terrible person" is the definition of "racist," I said that's often how people interpret it. I also didn't say it had lost all meaning.
I would be in favor of this.
Although, I don't agree with your characterization of the issue. I just think that being provocative is counterproductive. It's not about sparing anyone's feelings.
You're missing the point. Don't you think there's any value in trying to avoid inflammatory language with someone who disagrees with you, even if you're right?
Depends on what you're trying to do. If you're trying to demonstrate an understanding of my point, then no.
I never said we can't ever use the word "racist." I said that it may be pragmatic to avoid using that word when confronting someone who you believe is racist.
Most people don't think they're racist. I'm a pretty liberal person, and I don't think I'm at all racist, but I'm sure there's another liberal who's sufficiently extreme in his beliefs that he thinks I am. If this person wants to argue with something I said, and they start off with "that's racist" or more succinctly, "you're racist," I'm not going to be very inclined to hear this person out.
No, I think there's value in being honest and frank. I think there's value in openly evaluating someone's position. I think tip-toeing around the truth is exactly the wrong way to go about things.
If someone is racist, and doesn't think they're racist, you're not going to remedy that by not using the word.
Sure. I don't think that's the sort of usage that anyone here is talking about, though.
Whatever. More directly relevant: George W. Bush's ethics lawyer has pointed out that the USA has a number of conflict-of-interest laws regarding presidential behavior, and Trump having any connection to his former financial empire breaks most of them because it's possible someone could bribe him through them. It's called the Emoluments Clause, and it might get Trump impeached.
Also, Senator John McCain says he'll fight Trump regarding water-boarding. Specifically, he says torture doesn't work and that the United States will not torture prisoners.
Art is life itself.
Fantastic.
Let us also meditate on the fact that we're talking about impeaching Trump before he even takes office.
Respect, John McCain. Wish you had ran for president this year.
I'll just let you click this.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
A very different brand of crazy, but still.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Now all of you under the age of 12 put your hands down.
I certainly don't disagree here. All I'm saying is I think there are some corner cases where being honest and frank can be perceived as a personal attack.
It seems like everyone who disagrees with me thinks I'm saying that racists are the real victims, and we need to make sure we don't hurt their feelings or something. Which is absolutely not what I'm saying. I'm saying that calling someone a racist, whether they are or not, just puts them into total defense mode and they probably won't be willing to engage with you.
Do you think you're really going to reach peope by calling them racist? I feel like we tried that, and it just strengthened their support of Trump.
Again, I think my previous example of some far-left activist is pretty good here. If someone thinks what you said was racist, how would you like them to inform you? If I'm a good enough mood, I might be willing to hear someone out who calls me a racist. I try to be open-minded and listen to people. But I think it's a show of bad faith if someone's opening volley is, "That's racist!"
That's really funny, and I think it's kind of true. And that's problematic.
Sorry if I'm derailing this thread at all, but I think it's an important issue.
Yes, you'll get pushback if you point out that someone's position is racist. But the solution is not to avoid pointing that out - that's just giving up before you even start. If someone's racism is never challenged, they're not going to magically abandon those beliefs - it's just going to further entrench them with the idea that those positions are acceptable.
While there is technically always a chance that a president will be impeached, heck the Republicans
bluffedmentioned the possibility almost every day through Barack Obama's second term, Donald Trump is a little unique in this case, so if a chance arises, the Congress might actually jump on it.1. Donald Trump's entering the presidency historically unpopular. This is not a real reason to impeach anyone from office, but it needs to be laid out in the forefront because this reason enables all the other real speculations. He's even not all that popular to the Republicans he carried to victory as well.
2. Donald Trump is coming across as not knowing what he's going to do or how to do it, and if that's true, it's not that difficult to imagine a situation where Donald Trump inadvertently commits an impeachable action.
3. Donald Trump could deliberately commit an impeachable act under the hubris that he would not be impeached. There's a pattern of behavior in Donald Trump's history of him and his businesses thinking he/they are above the law. For example, needing to be sued twice for refusing to house African Americans, Trump University, allegations of sexual misconduct that even if half are proven true would date back decades, barging into a pageant dressing room, refusing to pay contractors for their work, and funnelling his campaign funds seemingly excessively into his business ventures. This is slightly different than accidentally committing an impeachable offense.
4. Donald Trump is filling his cabinet with controversial positions. What this means is that Donald Trump is surrounding himself with people that appear to encourage some of the qualities in Donald Trump that people do not like. This is natural; people surround themselves with people that agree with them. My concern is that tied with Trump's appearance to try to spin everything as either praising or attacking him personally would create a bubble and insulate himself from constructive criticism. That's bad. It helps create an environment for something like 2. or 3. to take place. Also, I watched the bubble on the left pop on election night. A bubble like that popping in the White House would be just as a big of a culture shock.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
But you are just presenting the situation as if you can't challenge their racist without explocitly calling them racist. I very much disagree- most importantly, as I said earlier, you can level the accusation at their claims.
It's a simple difference that can change the tone of the argument greatly- 'you're racist' vs 'that's racist'. One is personal and one is not.
Also as I said earlier I think this makes the argument more focused on the point at hand in being easier to relate and substantiate.
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
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The post I was responding to said, "But I think it's a show of bad faith if someone's opening volley is, "That's racist!", and your counterpoint is "yeah, but what if you say "that's racist"?".
Give me a break, dude.
It's a borderline example of my point. Somewhat of an oversight- but my point remains. The conservation was about calling a person racist and not that specific phrase.
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
Is your point that saying "that's racist" is fine, or that saying "that's racist" is counterproductive? I no longer understand where you stand on that.
**** Mike Pence.
Art is life itself.
I wouldn't either (and personally, I'd rather not find out Whether or not I'd dread a Pence presidency more than Trump presidency. There's a reason Pence's nickname is "Insurance Policy" on the left).
Michale Moore and the guy who developed the "Keys to the White House" prediction model have predicted a Trump impeachment. I suspect the reason is because the bar for discarding Trump as head of the Party and the country at least seems lower than it has looking back on previous presidencies. *Then again, all most people really have to go on in recent memory is Barack Obama, and the GOP cried wolf on him way too many times while ignoring his real issues.*
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
That was actually a mistake on my part; I should have written "if you have any intent whatsoever in actually persuading them that they're racist".
Done nitpicking?
Art is life itself.
I know the both houses are firmly in control of the Republicans at the moment but with some of the names coming out should we be surprised if they don't have a bumpy ride through the houses/commitees.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru