Very, very many. People are innately critically thinking, no matter whether they are very good at it.
It's really not hard to show that many people are quite bad at critically thinking, but that's not the same as not critically thinking at all.
This is just petty hair-splitting. What practical difference is there between people being so bad at critical thinking that their beliefs are entirely uncorrelated with truth, and not critically thinking at all? On question after question, Trump supporters do no better than random guessing. Once you cross that threshold, you may as well be not critically thinking at all.
Don't bother debating it at all then if you aren't interested in being productive about it.
I've already given a thorough explanation in the other thread. If you or Yamaha need a refresher, go back and read it.
Because all people who think critically at all don't believe ANY stupid things? I don't believe that.
Nobody is 100% rational, everybody thinks stupid things sometimes, even if only for a time before they dismiss it.
You don't need to be totally uncritical to believe a few stupid things.
How many stupid things do they have to believe for you to think they're uncritical? I can produce a LOT of examples backed by polling data.
Then argue why you think it's a big issue, while others can argue why they think it is of a larger scale. Don't just dismiss it.
Personally, I think it is a real problem, but not a particularly big one.
We've already had that thread. I'm not rehashing the argument, and I'm going to treat the idea like the insipid nonsense that it is - by dismissing it.
The problem is, that's not a fact. It's wrong. There aren't masses of people who are incapable of or choosing not to use critical thinking, even if there are such masses of people being fairly limited in critical thinking, there has to be very few not using any. But you choose to portray large numbers of people as completely uncritical. That's not a fair portrayal.
That sounds very fair to me. More than half of Trump voters think Obama was born in Kenya. You cannot believe that and also be capable of applying critical thinking. That belief is solely the domain of ignoramuses.
You aren't really addressing the concern here, Tiax. The concern is that people are abusing the concept of/word racism. And that's a legitimate concern, because people do actually do it. Whether it's a big concern or not, and where the instances of it are, is up to debate, but you can't just brush the concern aside like this. That's exactly the kind of attitude where this issue comes from.
I'm not addressing the concern because it's frivolous. It's not a real problem. It's just a cover for racists.
You all did? Who all? MTGS? A handful of debate posters who spend time pouring over the internet for data? Or literally everyone - including all white people - and all white people who rarely have to deal with race issues unless someone's in their face about it or rioting in a far away city? They all knew? Knew something more than a mob of people are busy destroying their own neighborhood and behaving terribly?
"All" is in the people who are now worried about what to tell their children. The people who have enough social consciousness to understand the threat Trump poses already understood the nature of race in America. The people who don't understand aren't the people you described as saying, "What am I going to tell my daughter?" and "America really is racist".
How about my original post - the one that you replied to acting like a bitter jerk, spouting about polls I never mentioned
-I believe social media, mainstream media, television and the internet do a very good job of silencing opinions they don't like
Really, you think the internet, home of everything from Stormfront to Tumblr, is good at silencing people?
-This leads people to believe that everyone (the overwhelming majority) thinks the same - that everyone is on the same page
I doubt many people are fooled. Do you really think more than a handful of crazies thought that either Trump or Clinton would win the "overwhelming majority" of votes? Everyone knows the country is divided. We see it constantly in the news.
-If you drive out everyone potentially guilty of wrongthink, you've only tricked yourself
I don't think you've tricked anyone.
-I also believe (per another thread) that hitting people with the racist or bigot stick on every topic or repeatedly demonizing white people simply shuts down the conversation.
As I said in that other thread, this is dangerous, backwards, and only serves to legitimize racism.
-In this very thread alone there's many negative comments demonizing white people - that's acceptable racism.
Well first of all it is different. And secondly, as usual, that doesn't actually answer the question, so I'm going to assume it's a yes unless you tell me otherwise.
Gee, I thought I was being clear as day that that was not an accurate or productive summary of my point.
Now... do you think that a good amount of these kinds of people could have also voted for Obama in 2012 or would they have been too racist for that?
Surely some did. I don't think a "good amount" did. Clinton only received about 70k fewer votes than Obama, but surely there was also cross-over in both direction that make the real number in the low millions. I doubt that those people are the ones who like Trump for his giving voice to racism.
You used the word racist right alongside xenophobic. You didn't have to, but you did. I don't know why you're so upset that I'm responding to the words you chose to use.
You came up with two examples that you don't feel fit the category of racism, but which surely fit the category of xenophobia. If I had just said xenophobia, would you be in agreement with my assessment of Trump voters?
That might make more sense of it, but the problem is that here's where the satire intersects with real life. He wrote a paper defending the revolution. I'm not particularly versed on the subject, but defending all of the consequences of the revolution is pretty controversial. As you know, we sometimes take up positions in history to provide context and give people or events a more thorough and fair hearing. Nevertheless, you start combining these behaviors together and it doesn't look good for this guy. You know, someone might argue that Holocaust death tolls are overestimated without being a Nazi sympathizer. But put a few other questionable claims and ideas into the mix and yeah, it's going to start looking bad for you at some point.
Have you actually read and digested his paper, or are you simply taking the word of the Daily Caller's summary that he was "praising white genocide"? Kind of sounds like the latter.
We're not on the same page here. He claims to have been mocking things because they were *false*: Jewish global conspiracies to conquer the world, miscegenation encouraged by governments to destroy the white race, etc. He didn't say he was mocking things that were *true*. Except he did mock things that were true because the Haitian genocide actually happened. You don't see any difference between conspiracy theories and things that actually happened? So if I say radical Muslims did 9/11 and then say radical Muslims are imposing Sharia law across the United States - those claims are on the same level?
When white nationalists talk about white genocide, they cite the Haitian massacre as an example of what we have in store for us. (I'd rather not link to Stormfront, but you can Google and find some of their essays on the topic). He didn't choose that example by accident - he was mocking the perception of white nationalists that people like him yearn for a repeat of that massacre.
To reinforce the point: Correcting the label from "racist" to "bigot" doesn't improve things any.
Or "xenophobe", a term I actually used the post he was responding to. But people like Ljoss are so intent on finding something - anything to avoid confronting racism that he was happy to ignore it and lead us down this farcical tangent.
I think we are on two totally separate ideas. I am speaking of the shock and awe felt (around the world actually) that America actually elected a man like Trump despite him doing and saying things that are now socially unacceptable. I am speaking in regard to millions of posts quoting "What am I going to tell my daughter?" and "America really is racist". I am speaking of celebrities, talk show hosts and television anchors blatantly saying they are shocked we elected a "racist sexist xenophobic" president. Not just immediately following the election, but even as the states turned colors.
Its the revelation that many people either feel that way OR they don't see that as something that would discourage them from voting for him.
If you are selling the idea that the masses were ONLY shocked BECAUSE the poll data suggested otherwise, then you've got your head in the sand. Or you're just being flippant.
America would be just as racist if Trump had received a few ten thousand fewer votes in the right places and lost the presidency. The worry people express about what to tell their children isn't a revelation - we all already knew America is racist. The surprise was the that the polls were off, not that millions of people are happy to support racism.
Did he actually say anything racist during the campaign trail, though? I could see chauvinist being a pretty appropriate word for him what with the way he treats women and all.
Let me try to put this in my own words and you tell me if this is what you mean. Do you mean that: he has been suspicious of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Muslims and, while Mexicans and Muslims aren't a race (so that you can't be racist against Mexicans or Muslims), they still have associations with "brownness" and that kind of talk triggered all the people that have a latent (or not latent, actually) hatred of brown people?
My mistake, I should have included "quibble over what is and is not a race" in the list of behaviors used to excuse racism.
What I want to believe is that he was honest in his explanation that he was satirizing the white power crowd's idea of 'white genocide.' Equating miscegenation with genocide is laughable.
But then everything else he says - including his first explanation as to the meaning of the tweet belies that notion. The events in Haiti have little to do with white nationalist conspiracy theories. Being concerned that a population which you are enslaving will rise against you and, in the ensuing chaos, destroy the innocent life among you - that would have been a rational fear possessed by a group of people that are apart from you in space and time. Whereas, say, a global conspiracy among the Jews who meet in secret to recruit blacks to get your children hooked on drugs blablabla... not so much.
You asked for my opinion, knowing that I have limited information. So here it is. I believe that his anger about historical (and perhaps many present) injustices has devolved into a hatred of whiteness and of white people, even though he, himself is white, whereas his anger ought to be directed at injustice itself.
I don't think that anyone who speaks about an entire race or gender in this way belongs in the classroom and I'm not going to make an exception because it's the correct group to hate.
So really the problem here is that you're so blinded by your SJW fever dreams that you really do think he hates white people and supports white genocide. You think Haiti has nothing do with white nationalist conspiracy theories, but white nationalists LOVE to bring up the Haitian massacre. It's like their go-to example. It seems to me that you just aren't well-informed enough to understand his tweets, and without that context you're reading into them what you want to see rather than what's actually there.
Is it, though? He's wasn't just the TV personality that he was before the election - nor was he Joe Populist. He came out and was as crazy as he wanted to be, maybe crazier than that. He said things that made you wonder whether the Democratic establishment was operating some kind of mind control device on him to get him to sabotage himself. He had no clue what he was doing before this started and he ran against a well-established politician. He spent less than her. He didn't have the appeal of being the first female POTUS. The Republican party itself turned on him - the most we've seen a party rebel against their own candidate in a century. The overwhelming majority of the media was in full attack mode against him.
Not only should he have lost, he should have been trounced. And he won. Barely or not... he won. Dude, how the hell did that happen?
Because a huge number of people in the country yearn for outright racism and xenophobia in their politicians, and an even bigger number are useful idiots who think any racism ended in 1964 and will spend their time bemoaning the fact that anyone would dare use the word racism, while giving actual racism a pass.
The shocking revelation that despite all the things he's said, the things he's done and the principles he campaigned on, a staggering amount of people voted for him (and enough in the right places to win an election.) The very IDEA that he'll be in the white house.
The echo chamber in social media is not smear articles and polling. Its people all nodding their head in agreement on (all of the issues involved) repeating the same views back to each other (echo... echo..) because they've stomped out the opposing view, thus lead to believe nobody like Trump could get elected. Because that's racist. And that's sexist. And that's xenophobic. And everyone cares about polar bears. Right? Right.
That is, the revelation.
Everyone always knew a staggering amount of people would vote for him. The only question was whether he'd be soundly defeated or squeak out a win. The polling data suggested the former was more likely. That's why people believed he wouldn't be elected - because the evidence supported that conclusion.
This is just petty hair-splitting. What practical difference is there between people being so bad at critical thinking that their beliefs are entirely uncorrelated with truth, and not critically thinking at all? On question after question, Trump supporters do no better than random guessing. Once you cross that threshold, you may as well be not critically thinking at all.
I've already given a thorough explanation in the other thread. If you or Yamaha need a refresher, go back and read it.
How many stupid things do they have to believe for you to think they're uncritical? I can produce a LOT of examples backed by polling data.
We've already had that thread. I'm not rehashing the argument, and I'm going to treat the idea like the insipid nonsense that it is - by dismissing it.
That sounds very fair to me. More than half of Trump voters think Obama was born in Kenya. You cannot believe that and also be capable of applying critical thinking. That belief is solely the domain of ignoramuses.
I'm not addressing the concern because it's frivolous. It's not a real problem. It's just a cover for racists.
"All" is in the people who are now worried about what to tell their children. The people who have enough social consciousness to understand the threat Trump poses already understood the nature of race in America. The people who don't understand aren't the people you described as saying, "What am I going to tell my daughter?" and "America really is racist".
Really, you think the internet, home of everything from Stormfront to Tumblr, is good at silencing people?
I doubt many people are fooled. Do you really think more than a handful of crazies thought that either Trump or Clinton would win the "overwhelming majority" of votes? Everyone knows the country is divided. We see it constantly in the news.
I don't think you've tricked anyone.
As I said in that other thread, this is dangerous, backwards, and only serves to legitimize racism.
No there aren't.
Gee, I thought I was being clear as day that that was not an accurate or productive summary of my point.
Surely some did. I don't think a "good amount" did. Clinton only received about 70k fewer votes than Obama, but surely there was also cross-over in both direction that make the real number in the low millions. I doubt that those people are the ones who like Trump for his giving voice to racism.
You came up with two examples that you don't feel fit the category of racism, but which surely fit the category of xenophobia. If I had just said xenophobia, would you be in agreement with my assessment of Trump voters?
Have you actually read and digested his paper, or are you simply taking the word of the Daily Caller's summary that he was "praising white genocide"? Kind of sounds like the latter.
When white nationalists talk about white genocide, they cite the Haitian massacre as an example of what we have in store for us. (I'd rather not link to Stormfront, but you can Google and find some of their essays on the topic). He didn't choose that example by accident - he was mocking the perception of white nationalists that people like him yearn for a repeat of that massacre.
Or "xenophobe", a term I actually used the post he was responding to. But people like Ljoss are so intent on finding something - anything to avoid confronting racism that he was happy to ignore it and lead us down this farcical tangent.
America would be just as racist if Trump had received a few ten thousand fewer votes in the right places and lost the presidency. The worry people express about what to tell their children isn't a revelation - we all already knew America is racist. The surprise was the that the polls were off, not that millions of people are happy to support racism.
My mistake, I should have included "quibble over what is and is not a race" in the list of behaviors used to excuse racism.
So really the problem here is that you're so blinded by your SJW fever dreams that you really do think he hates white people and supports white genocide. You think Haiti has nothing do with white nationalist conspiracy theories, but white nationalists LOVE to bring up the Haitian massacre. It's like their go-to example. It seems to me that you just aren't well-informed enough to understand his tweets, and without that context you're reading into them what you want to see rather than what's actually there.
Because a huge number of people in the country yearn for outright racism and xenophobia in their politicians, and an even bigger number are useful idiots who think any racism ended in 1964 and will spend their time bemoaning the fact that anyone would dare use the word racism, while giving actual racism a pass.
Everyone always knew a staggering amount of people would vote for him. The only question was whether he'd be soundly defeated or squeak out a win. The polling data suggested the former was more likely. That's why people believed he wouldn't be elected - because the evidence supported that conclusion.