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.
I'm not ignoring any of those things. I'm not suggesting that Trump thinks Mexicans are just naturally predisposed to personally dislike him.
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. .
We've already all agreed that everyone's experiences differently shape their views. What I do not agree with is the notion that one of those reactions constitutes a bias while the other does not.
To put it more concretely in terms of this case, while Hispanic voters dislike Trump more than the average American, white voters like Trump more than the average American. It is not the case that therefore Mexicans have, on average, a biased view of Trump, while whites have, on average, an impartial view of Trump. One reaction to Trump is not the default and the other is not a deviation from that default.
To put it more concretely in terms of this case, while Hispanic voters dislike Trump more than the average American, white voters like Trump more than the average American. It is not the case that therefore Mexicans have, on average, a biased view of Trump, while whites have, on average, an impartial view of Trump. One reaction to Trump is not the default and the other is not a deviation from that default.
What you are failing at and the reason you could not respond to the cite is, Trump has never indicated he would get a more or less favorable outcome from a white jurist. You are making that leap, not Trump. You fail to understand that Trump thinks this judge is acting differently than an impartial judge would, of any race or heritage (Trump has not made ANY comments concerning the heritage of any purported alternate judge), and Trump thinks it has something to do with his immigration stance and the judge being Mexican. Which is not an unreasonable conclusion, despite the fact it may not be correct.
Do you agree Americans have a much stronger response to domestic terrorism than a terrorism in Israel? Are they racist if they do not care as much about terrorism in Israel? Is the US government racist for not taking steps to protect Israelis, as they do Americans?
What you are failing at and the reason you could not respond to the cite is, Trump has never indicated he would get a more or less favorable outcome from a white jurist. You are making that leap, not Trump. You fail to understand that Trump thinks this judge is acting differently than an impartial judge would, of any race or heritage (Trump has not made ANY comments concerning the heritage of any purported alternate judge), and Trump thinks it has something to do with his immigration stance and the judge being Mexican. Which is not an unreasonable conclusion, despite the fact it may not be correct.
Even ljoss agrees Trump would not be satisfied with a Mexican replacement judge. That's just what the phrase "He's Mexican" implies. If you complain about a trait, it means you want a replacement that does not have that trait. If Trump's complaint was only about this specific judge being biased against him, then the fact that he has Mexican heritage would be completely immaterial. It only makes sense to mention that he's Mexican if Trump is implying that Mexicans are more likely to be biased against him (a premise which you seem to agree with).
Do you agree Americans have a much stronger response to domestic terrorism than a terrorism in Israel? Are they racist if they do not care as much about terrorism in Israel? Is the US government racist for not taking steps to protect Israelis, as they do Americans?
I don't see the analogy here. But my answers are yes, no, no.
Do you agree Americans have a much stronger response to domestic terrorism than a terrorism in Israel? Are they racist if they do not care as much about terrorism in Israel? Is the US government racist for not taking steps to protect Israelis, as they do Americans?
I don't see the analogy here.
You've yet to discredit my logic, or address it for that matter. This is the same as this:
A judge belongs to group A.
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.
I'm going to step out, as I think this argument is the best one I can make. If you do not agree with the conclusion or premise, then there really is nothing more to talk about, as you do not appear to want to say why.
You've yet to discredit my logic, or address it for that matter. This is the same as this:
A judge belongs to group A.
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.
I'm going to step out, as I think this argument is the best one I can make. If you do not agree with the conclusion or premise, then there really is nothing more to talk about, as you do not appear to want to say why.
That's not an argument, that's just a statement. The first two points are not logical premises, they're just scene setting. The third point is just you stating your view on the matter. There's no logical progression, there's no development of a conclusion from premises. It's just you saying the thing you think.
You've yet to discredit my logic, or address it for that matter. This is the same as this:
A judge belongs to group A.
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.
I'm going to step out, as I think this argument is the best one I can make. If you do not agree with the conclusion or premise, then there really is nothing more to talk about, as you do not appear to want to say why.
That's not an argument, that's just a statement. The first two points are not logical premises, they're just scene setting. The third point is just you stating your view on the matter. There's no logical progression, there's no development of a conclusion from premises. It's just you saying the thing you think.
I get it, you disagree with the conclusion. You are seriously arguing the conclusion is based upon incoherent logic? My statement is unreasonable or racist? Do you not understand or see the logic behind it? This is why it's frustrating to debate against you. It's basically cause and effect....
"I think it has to do perhaps with the fact that I'm very, very strong on the border, very, very strong at the border, and he has been extremely hostile to me," Trump told Fox News in February. That's the line he picked up in June to the Journal: that Curiel's heritage is a "conflict of interest," because his family is from Mexico and Trump wants to build a wall there.
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?
Than a neutral party.
It sounds like you're again burying a normative value judgment in favor of the views and experiences of non-Mexicans in there.
I'm not burying anything. You're expanding my position and, from what I can tell, bravebaseball's position.
Do you believe that an expressed desire to deport illegal Mexican immigrants in the U.S. has an equal impact on Mexicans and non-Mexicans alike?
Even ljoss agrees Trump would not be satisfied with a Mexican replacement judge. That's just what the phrase "He's Mexican" implies. If you complain about a trait, it means you want a replacement that does not have that trait. If Trump's complaint was only about this specific judge being biased against him, then the fact that he has Mexican heritage would be completely immaterial. It only makes sense to mention that he's Mexican if Trump is implying that Mexicans are more likely to be biased against him (a premise which you seem to agree with).
You know, while we're at it, can we all stipulate that 'Mexican' is not a race? Because I totally get what you're trying to do with it and I'm willing to engage on the race issue but the fact that it is literally a nationality as opposed to a race is actually pretty relevant here.
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?
Than a neutral party.
It sounds like you're again burying a normative value judgment in favor of the views and experiences of non-Mexicans in there.
I'm not burying anything. You're expanding my position and, from what I can tell, bravebaseball's position.
Do you believe that an expressed desire to deport illegal Mexican immigrants in the U.S. has an equal impact on Mexicans and non-Mexicans alike?
Even ljoss agrees Trump would not be satisfied with a Mexican replacement judge. That's just what the phrase "He's Mexican" implies. If you complain about a trait, it means you want a replacement that does not have that trait. If Trump's complaint was only about this specific judge being biased against him, then the fact that he has Mexican heritage would be completely immaterial. It only makes sense to mention that he's Mexican if Trump is implying that Mexicans are more likely to be biased against him (a premise which you seem to agree with).
You know, while we're at it, can we all stipulate that 'Mexican' is not a race? Because I totally get what you're trying to do with it and I'm willing to engage on the race issue but the fact that it is literally a nationality as opposed to a race is actually pretty relevant here.
As much as I hate to defend Trump, you do not hear him talking about El Salvadorian's much. I hinted at this point with my Hispanic references.
On another note, people know what a "conflict of interest" is, right? A conflict is a something that presents potential for bias, but does not imply a bias. It is, after all, why Bill Clinton meeting with the AG was also a "conflict of interest", whether or not the meeting actually resulted in a biased decision.
I'm not burying anything. You're expanding my position and, from what I can tell, bravebaseball's position.
Do you believe that an expressed desire to deport illegal Mexican immigrants in the U.S. has an equal impact on Mexicans and non-Mexicans alike?
I'm sure it has an unequal impact on everyone. What I disagree with is the notion that the impact it has on non-Mexicans is the "neutral party" impact, and the impact it has on Mexicans is the biased reaction. Trump's statements have an unequal impact on white people and non-white people, as we can see from the polls. Does that mean that white people are on average biased with regards to Trump?
You know, while we're at it, can we all stipulate that 'Mexican' is not a race? Because I totally get what you're trying to do with it and I'm willing to engage on the race issue but the fact that it is literally a nationality as opposed to a race is actually pretty relevant here.
The judge in question does not have Mexican nationality, so it's not that. The question of what is and is not a race is nebulous, but I don't think it's relevant here. If we want to term it an "ethnicity" or whatever, that's fine by me. Just pretend I mean that when I say race.
By Ljoss's function virtually no one who is not a white natural born American could possibly be neutral due to how many people have pretense to be biased against Trump.
By Ljoss's function virtually no one who is not a white natural born American could possibly be neutral due to how many people have pretense to be biased against Trump.
What makes you think the white natural born Americans are neutral?
Trump's a Republican presidential nominee. Couldn't the Democrats be biased?
Trump's affluent. Wouldn't anyone not as affluent as he is be biased?
Trump's from New York. Wouldn't anyone who doesn't like New York be biased?
Who, by Ljoss' standards, actually qualifies as a neutral party?
The level of mental gymnastics being performed in this thread is astounding. I'm really curious if there's some sort of upper limit to how much people are willing to dance around to try to make Trump's racist statements seem not racist.
Ya, I know it's diffulct to understand why a Mexican may have special reasons to be biased agaist Trump. To point that out is apparrently racist. Mexicans are protesting more this election season as opposed to others, but it has nothing to do with them being Mexican, and Trumps immigration stance. It is racist to think a Mexican specifically will take what Trump says personally and potentially hold a grudge against him.
I mean do all of you seriously belive Mexican heritage is not a motivating factor for the outrage for those in the latino community? You do not think thier heriatge influences the level of interest or bias they may have for someone like Trump?
By Ljoss's function virtually no one who is not a white natural born American could possibly be neutral due to how many people have pretense to be biased against Trump.
What makes you think the white natural born Americans are neutral?
Trump's a Republican presidential nominee. Couldn't the Democrats be biased?
Trump's affluent. Wouldn't anyone not as affluent as he is be biased?
Trump's from New York. Wouldn't anyone who doesn't like New York be biased?
Who, by Ljoss' standards, actually qualifies as a neutral party?
Women favour Clinton over Trump by a large margin. Presumably women, too, would also be biased and therefore unable to judge the case.
Do you think Trump himself might qualify as unbiased?
The level of mental gymnastics being performed in this thread is astounding. I'm really curious if there's some sort of upper limit to how much people are willing to dance around to try to make Trump's racist statements seem not racist.
Oh, come on. Some of them, I assume, are good people.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Same old song. Person makes a racist statement, making a judgment of someone based on their race. Others call them on it. They try to defend themselves by basically saying, "it's not racist, it's true. [Race here] really IS [racist statement here]."
This isn't doing a good job of convincing people you aren't racist. You're just arguing that being racist isn't bad. Good luck with that.
Same old song. Person makes a racist statement, making a judgment of someone based on their race. Others call them on it. They try to defend themselves by basically saying, "it's not racist, it's true. [Race here] really IS [racist statement here]."
This isn't doing a good job of convincing people you aren't racist. You're just arguing that being racist isn't bad. Good luck with that.
Simply saying its racist does not work anymore. You can blame SJWism for that.
Yes or no, a persons nationality impacts thier decision making and attachment to issues?
They try to defend themselves by basically saying, "it's not racist, it's true. [Race here] really IS [racist statement here]."
This isn't doing a good job of convincing people you aren't racist. You're just arguing that being racist isn't bad. Good luck with that.
Seeking the truth is the highest possible moral imperative. Any other moral imperative you might care to name necessarily relies on your being able to determine truth or falsity of its subject matter.
The only reason something can *ever* be bad is if it's not true. The truth can never be bad. Therefore, if you are operating on some notion of racism that makes some true statements out to be racist, then in fact racism isn't always bad.
The moral opprobrium that was associated with racism when that word was being used properly was there precisely because properly-identified racist claims are false. Now people are using "racist" purely to direct that echo of moral opprobrium at their enemies, without regard to the ultimate reasons why anyone ever attached that moral opprobrium in the first place.
"Black people commit five times more violent crime than white people" isn't racist, because it's true. "Mexicans can't be judges because they have special biases above and beyond those of other humans" IS racist, because it's false.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Same old song. Person makes a racist statement, making a judgment of someone based on their race. Others call them on it. They try to defend themselves by basically saying, "it's not racist, it's true. [Race here] really IS [racist statement here]."
This isn't doing a good job of convincing people you aren't racist. You're just arguing that being racist isn't bad. Good luck with that.
Simply saying its racist does not work anymore. You can blame SJWism for that.
Yes or no, a persons nationality impacts thier decision making and attachment to issues?
Yes. But it is racist to assume that just because a person has that nationality, that will do more than just play some little role in their worldview but rather makes them incapable of fairly reviewing certain cases. Especially when the potential bias we are talking about only applies, in reality, to SOME Mexicans, meaning assuming that just because someone with this heritage has this bias associated with it is prejudiced.
Everything about a person's background and lifestyle are sources of bias, necessarily, because they largely define a person. You can't suggest that one particular part is making someone biased without concrete evidence of such a relationship, or else what you are doing is peddling a preconceived narrative of that group of people and THAT is racism.
Same old song. Person makes a racist statement, making a judgment of someone based on their race. Others call them on it. They try to defend themselves by basically saying, "it's not racist, it's true. [Race here] really IS [racist statement here]."
This isn't doing a good job of convincing people you aren't racist. You're just arguing that being racist isn't bad. Good luck with that.
Simply saying its racist does not work anymore. You can blame SJWism for that.
Yes or no, a persons nationality impacts thier decision making and attachment to issues?
Yes. But it is racist to assume that just because a person has that nationality, that will do more than just play some little role in their worldview but rather makes them incapable of fiarly viewing cases
It astoundingly clear Trumps contempt is not limited to just his heritage. Trump has never stated Mexicans are unfair jurist. What brought on the claim was Trump percecption of unfair rulings.
Trump did not say all Mexicans would be biased. If you think he is saying that you would be perpetuating a straw man.
Same old song. Person makes a racist statement, making a judgment of someone based on their race. Others call them on it. They try to defend themselves by basically saying, "it's not racist, it's true. [Race here] really IS [racist statement here]."
This isn't doing a good job of convincing people you aren't racist. You're just arguing that being racist isn't bad. Good luck with that.
Simply saying its racist does not work anymore. You can blame SJWism for that.
Yes or no, a persons nationality impacts thier decision making and attachment to issues?
Yes. But it is racist to assume that just because a person has that nationality, that will do more than just play some little role in their worldview but rather makes them incapable of fiarly viewing cases
It astoundingly clear Trumps contempt is not limited to just his heritage.
The discussion is about the comment not Trump's thought behind it, for one.
Trump did not say all Mexicans would be biased.
He said the Judge was biased because he's Mexican. He absolutely did say it. He didn't say all Mexicans would be biased in all cases, but the reason given for bias had nothing to do with the individual judge's character.
Why are family members of victims not allowed to sit on juries of the perpetrator? Trump is the perpetrator and the judge is in the family of the victims, The family is all Mexicans. Now, Mexicans are a much broader group than immediate and even non-immediate famiily to where this conflict of interest is largely mitigated, but the personal connection exist and could influence a Mexican judge.
They try to defend themselves by basically saying, "it's not racist, it's true. [Race here] really IS [racist statement here]."
This isn't doing a good job of convincing people you aren't racist. You're just arguing that being racist isn't bad. Good luck with that.
Seeking the truth is the highest possible moral imperative. Any other moral imperative you might care to name necessarily relies on your being able to determine truth or falsity of its subject matter.
The only reason something can *ever* be bad is if it's not true. The truth can never be bad. Therefore, if you are operating on some notion of racism that makes some true statements out to be racist, then in fact racism isn't always bad.
The moral opprobrium that was associated with racism when that word was being used properly was there precisely because properly-identified racist claims are false. Now people are using "racist" purely to direct that echo of moral opprobrium at their enemies, without regard to the ultimate reasons why anyone ever attached that moral opprobrium in the first place.
"Black people commit five times more violent crime than white people" isn't racist, because it's true. "Mexicans can't be judges because they have special biases above and beyond those of other humans" IS racist, because it's false.
For the record, black people are also significantly less wealthy on average than white people are, and there's a stronger correlation between crime and poverty than between crime and race [Ellis et al., 2009].
So, if someone were to say "Black people commit five times more violent crime than white people because they're black", then that person may well be racist. They might also be misinformed. It depends on if they're not including the extra explanation deliberately or not.
Handbook of Crime Correlates; Lee Ellis, Kevin M. Beaver, John Wright; 2009; Academic Press
Why are family members of victims not allowed to sit on juries of the perpetrator? Trump is the perpetrator and the judge is in the family of the victims, The family is all Mexicans. Now, Mexicans are a much broader group than immediate and even non-immediate famiily to where this conflict of interest is largely mitigated, but the personal connection exist and could influence a Mexican judge.
True or false?
Should Mexicans be allowed to sit on juries of trials in which the victims are also Mexican? If your answer is yes, this is an irrelevant analogy.
I mean do all of you seriously belive Mexican heritage is not a motivating factor for the outrage for those in the latino community? You do not think thier heriatge influences the level of interest or bias they may have for someone like Trump?
Trump said that he was being given unfair rulings because the judge was a Mexican judge.
This is a racist claim.
If you want to claim otherwise, point out that the judge was giving him unfair rulings, and then point out that this was purely because the judge is Mexican.
Simply saying its racist does not work anymore. You can blame SJWism for that.
It works perfectly, because the only people who don't accept it as racist are the people who are actively trying to prove Donald Trump isn't racist and as such are refusing to admit that he is.
Now people are using "racist" purely to direct that echo of moral opprobrium at their enemies, without regard to the ultimate reasons why anyone ever attached that moral opprobrium in the first place.
This coming from the person who is arguing that he should be allowed to dismiss anyone as a "SJW" without ever having to examine their arguments, because he can automatically declare them wrong with a label without ever having to examine whether their claims are true or false. Yay hypocrisy!
I'm not ignoring any of those things. I'm not suggesting that Trump thinks Mexicans are just naturally predisposed to personally dislike him.
We've already all agreed that everyone's experiences differently shape their views. What I do not agree with is the notion that one of those reactions constitutes a bias while the other does not.
To put it more concretely in terms of this case, while Hispanic voters dislike Trump more than the average American, white voters like Trump more than the average American. It is not the case that therefore Mexicans have, on average, a biased view of Trump, while whites have, on average, an impartial view of Trump. One reaction to Trump is not the default and the other is not a deviation from that default.
What you are failing at and the reason you could not respond to the cite is, Trump has never indicated he would get a more or less favorable outcome from a white jurist. You are making that leap, not Trump. You fail to understand that Trump thinks this judge is acting differently than an impartial judge would, of any race or heritage (Trump has not made ANY comments concerning the heritage of any purported alternate judge), and Trump thinks it has something to do with his immigration stance and the judge being Mexican. Which is not an unreasonable conclusion, despite the fact it may not be correct.
Do you agree Americans have a much stronger response to domestic terrorism than a terrorism in Israel? Are they racist if they do not care as much about terrorism in Israel? Is the US government racist for not taking steps to protect Israelis, as they do Americans?
Even ljoss agrees Trump would not be satisfied with a Mexican replacement judge. That's just what the phrase "He's Mexican" implies. If you complain about a trait, it means you want a replacement that does not have that trait. If Trump's complaint was only about this specific judge being biased against him, then the fact that he has Mexican heritage would be completely immaterial. It only makes sense to mention that he's Mexican if Trump is implying that Mexicans are more likely to be biased against him (a premise which you seem to agree with).
I don't see the analogy here. But my answers are yes, no, no.
You've yet to discredit my logic, or address it for that matter. This is the same as this:
I'm going to step out, as I think this argument is the best one I can make. If you do not agree with the conclusion or premise, then there really is nothing more to talk about, as you do not appear to want to say why.
That's not an argument, that's just a statement. The first two points are not logical premises, they're just scene setting. The third point is just you stating your view on the matter. There's no logical progression, there's no development of a conclusion from premises. It's just you saying the thing you think.
I get it, you disagree with the conclusion. You are seriously arguing the conclusion is based upon incoherent logic? My statement is unreasonable or racist? Do you not understand or see the logic behind it? This is why it's frustrating to debate against you. It's basically cause and effect....
Than a neutral party.
I'm not burying anything. You're expanding my position and, from what I can tell, bravebaseball's position.
Do you believe that an expressed desire to deport illegal Mexican immigrants in the U.S. has an equal impact on Mexicans and non-Mexicans alike?
You know, while we're at it, can we all stipulate that 'Mexican' is not a race? Because I totally get what you're trying to do with it and I'm willing to engage on the race issue but the fact that it is literally a nationality as opposed to a race is actually pretty relevant here.
As much as I hate to defend Trump, you do not hear him talking about El Salvadorian's much. I hinted at this point with my Hispanic references.
Which is who? A non-Mexican?
I'm sure it has an unequal impact on everyone. What I disagree with is the notion that the impact it has on non-Mexicans is the "neutral party" impact, and the impact it has on Mexicans is the biased reaction. Trump's statements have an unequal impact on white people and non-white people, as we can see from the polls. Does that mean that white people are on average biased with regards to Trump?
The judge in question does not have Mexican nationality, so it's not that. The question of what is and is not a race is nebulous, but I don't think it's relevant here. If we want to term it an "ethnicity" or whatever, that's fine by me. Just pretend I mean that when I say race.
Trump's a Republican presidential nominee. Couldn't the Democrats be biased?
Trump's affluent. Wouldn't anyone not as affluent as he is be biased?
Trump's from New York. Wouldn't anyone who doesn't like New York be biased?
Who, by Ljoss' standards, actually qualifies as a neutral party?
The level of mental gymnastics being performed in this thread is astounding. I'm really curious if there's some sort of upper limit to how much people are willing to dance around to try to make Trump's racist statements seem not racist.
Do you think Trump himself might qualify as unbiased?
Oh, come on. Some of them, I assume, are good people.
This isn't doing a good job of convincing people you aren't racist. You're just arguing that being racist isn't bad. Good luck with that.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Simply saying its racist does not work anymore. You can blame SJWism for that.
Yes or no, a persons nationality impacts thier decision making and attachment to issues?
Seeking the truth is the highest possible moral imperative. Any other moral imperative you might care to name necessarily relies on your being able to determine truth or falsity of its subject matter.
The only reason something can *ever* be bad is if it's not true. The truth can never be bad. Therefore, if you are operating on some notion of racism that makes some true statements out to be racist, then in fact racism isn't always bad.
The moral opprobrium that was associated with racism when that word was being used properly was there precisely because properly-identified racist claims are false. Now people are using "racist" purely to direct that echo of moral opprobrium at their enemies, without regard to the ultimate reasons why anyone ever attached that moral opprobrium in the first place.
"Black people commit five times more violent crime than white people" isn't racist, because it's true. "Mexicans can't be judges because they have special biases above and beyond those of other humans" IS racist, because it's false.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Yes. But it is racist to assume that just because a person has that nationality, that will do more than just play some little role in their worldview but rather makes them incapable of fairly reviewing certain cases. Especially when the potential bias we are talking about only applies, in reality, to SOME Mexicans, meaning assuming that just because someone with this heritage has this bias associated with it is prejudiced.
Everything about a person's background and lifestyle are sources of bias, necessarily, because they largely define a person. You can't suggest that one particular part is making someone biased without concrete evidence of such a relationship, or else what you are doing is peddling a preconceived narrative of that group of people and THAT is racism.
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
It astoundingly clear Trumps contempt is not limited to just his heritage. Trump has never stated Mexicans are unfair jurist. What brought on the claim was Trump percecption of unfair rulings.
Trump did not say all Mexicans would be biased. If you think he is saying that you would be perpetuating a straw man.
The discussion is about the comment not Trump's thought behind it, for one.
He said the Judge was biased because he's Mexican. He absolutely did say it. He didn't say all Mexicans would be biased in all cases, but the reason given for bias had nothing to do with the individual judge's character.
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
True or false?
So, if someone were to say "Black people commit five times more violent crime than white people because they're black", then that person may well be racist. They might also be misinformed. It depends on if they're not including the extra explanation deliberately or not.
Handbook of Crime Correlates; Lee Ellis, Kevin M. Beaver, John Wright; 2009; Academic Press
Art is life itself.
Should Mexicans be allowed to sit on juries of trials in which the victims are also Mexican? If your answer is yes, this is an irrelevant analogy.
This is a racist claim.
If you want to claim otherwise, point out that the judge was giving him unfair rulings, and then point out that this was purely because the judge is Mexican.
It works perfectly, because the only people who don't accept it as racist are the people who are actively trying to prove Donald Trump isn't racist and as such are refusing to admit that he is.
This coming from the person who is arguing that he should be allowed to dismiss anyone as a "SJW" without ever having to examine their arguments, because he can automatically declare them wrong with a label without ever having to examine whether their claims are true or false. Yay hypocrisy!