I'd say racism is a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others. It causes the racist to say things that reflect racism including dislike for people based on their race, perceptions of people being inferior based on race, and/or treatment of others as though they were "sub-human".
Fair enough. I think I would agree with most of what you have written. My question is that is it possible to talk about people of different races and ethnic backgrounds without making it solely about the races and ethnic background in question?
Well of course it depends on the subject. If I say black people make less income for the same work compared to white people, that isn't racist. But if I say black people make less income for the same work because they're slower or lazy or not as smart, that would be racist. Right? What some on the right are doing with this "squad" issue is to claim that both those statements are racist because they make a distinction between black and white.
I really do not know you; and you really do not know me. So it is surely forgivable if you may imagine that I am some diehard Trump "supporter." In reality, I was a Ted Cruz guy in the 2016 primaries. And, even to this day, I am certainly not a "MAGA" cultist. But I do believe that President Trump has been unfairly maligned--certainly, by the left, and by Democrats (to the extent that there is any difference nowadays); and even by some in his own party. Have I actually said anything that you find objectionable?
[QUOTE="Kode, post: 1070776385, member: 70481"I think it exceedingly "insensitive" for a white person to tell non-whites to "go back to the country they came from" in this day-and-age of racist attacks by anyone from white supremacist thugs to police. It assumes the person is not from the US but is a recent immigrant, and that assumption can only have one apparent cause: racist assumptions. And worse yet, we're talking about a president with such gross insensitivity and racist assumptions![/quote] Granted, President Trump phraseology could have been a bit more eloquent. That said, the context in which these words were uttered should surely be noted: The president was merely making the point that if these "Four Horsewomen of the Apocalypse" (as they have been dubbed) truly believe that they know of how to improve things, then they should do so in their home countries--or, in the cases of three of the four, in the countries of their ancestry. And your use of the term "this day-and-age of racist attacks" indicates to me that either (1) you were not around in the 1950s and 1960s, when black people were routinely treated with total disrespect; and you have not even learned, in history class, about this time; or (2) you have an exceedingly short memory.
I've told canadians the same thing for complaining about the USA all the time, they got over it. didn't vote for him, but if the dem's nominate a progressive, i'll be forced to vote for him this time around. You won't like my comments but they are above in red, if that makes me a bad person, oh well. Overall, (if this helps) I can't stand him as a person, he's a brash, arrogant NY businessman who acts un-presidential dam near every day he annoys me but only to the extent that a fly might bother me at a picnic, the food is delicious but I wish the fly would go somewhere else but in the meantime i'll enjoy the food. I hate the messenger, but I like the message, and honestly I think the attacks on the left have been just awful, so even if he started the fight(s) they haven't been responding calmly and politely, and at least he doesn't take the abuse like Bush and Obama did, I wish Bush and Obama would have fought back too.
Your last paragraph makes a judgement and a connection that isn't valid, so the whole paragraph is bogus. It is completely valid to speak of "in this day and age" even in the context you present. Regarding the remainder, the whole issue is racist and Trump made it so. Your insistence that there is some theoretical "logic" to them going back to fix things is also just as bigoted when we think about three of them having been born in the US. There's no "going back" and they are in their "home country" and trying to fix things. His name-calling is also childish and beneath the office. So all-in-all, your post is horse pucky in it's thorough lack of validity.
No, everything you need to make that determination is there. The "problem" is that you are diligently looking for any way to deny it.
Referencing the status of a country is not racist. Countries do not have a race as they are not beings, but rather are geographic Please get educated
It appears that you--like so many on the left--compare the way things currently are to some theoretical measure of perfection. And that is what is truly bogus (to borrow your terminology). I will grant you that President Trump's name-calling is "beneath [the dignity of] the office." In fact, I am not at all enamored with his propensity to engage in a mud-wrestling contest. And yes, America is the "home country" to all these women--three of the four were actually born here; the fourth--formerly a Somali citizen--is a naturalized American--but if they find this country totally repugnant, they might do well to search elsewhere. (Note: Matthew Continetti--Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Free Beacon--has dubbed these women "communists." And so has Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC). And, although I am unsure as to their economic theories, I would say that they are at least cultural Marxists.)
Stop the ignorant insults. I have enough education to know that you just tried to dodge the whole thing with one obvious objection. (Note to moderators: "Ignorant" is an adjective here describing the specific insults.)
That would be a contrived theory that has no validity unless you detail-out the two compared issues and prove your point. As it stands you have an empty claim here. Congrats. Do you really believe identification of objectionable features constitutes "finding this country totally repugnant"? Be careful here because I can list plenty of Republican Party and Trump statements that identify features they find objectionable. And if you don't believe what you said, your arguments defending Trump's attack on them telling them to "go home" is now destroyed. That would be your personal opinion which I assert lacks evidence and validity, and see it as a contrived product of your expressed bias against them.
Remember the question: " Is it possible to talk about people of a certain race without making it about race?" You just made it about race. I just want to know if it's possible to talk about people of color without being the subject specifically being about their color. Just a week ago, the speaker of the house chastised "the squad" over their tactics. Yet (somehow) became about race, simply because, the speaker didn't chastised anyone who is white (which is a poor argument). It doesn't seem to be possible to criticize what people of color are doing without making it about their color specifically, which is why I asked is it possible. It doesn't appear to be. Simply making a distinction between color isn't racist; it is the way the distinctions are made.
Note to mods..I don't care if he calls me ignorant and would never report for such a silly thing...First world problems! @Kode Sorry about my insult..I could have left that out of my response..my bad Now what am I dodging exactly? I still don't see any proof of Trump being racist. He is very non PC but where is proof of actual racism? Did he drop the N bomb? Did he institute a black tax? What racist thing did he do?
He assumed nothing He merely insulted them as individuals which is by definition not racist We have proven your accusations false on many threads But like many immature people you have think repeating a proven falsehood makes it beleivable We know it was not racist and so do you
The squad is using their color as a race bludgeon like the left did when one disagreed with an Obama policy.
And Trump has NEVER said anything even close to the version of statement you just described as racist, which we can ALL agree is racist. When Trump was describing illegals for example, many of whom are murderers and rapists, how was it racist? Its a statistical fact that illegals ARE murdering, raping and robbing US citizens. Our prisons are LOADED with illegals. He never said ALL MEXICANS are anything. He was specifically referring to the illegals who are rapists or murderers. But the MSM twisted his words, misquoted and flat out lied about what he actually said, carefully clipping video or totally misquoting him. Obama called a bunch of cops morons. Guess I can assume he was racist because some or all were white. He said a bunch of people cling to their bible and guns. I can assume he must be racist and a bigot for making fun of religious people. He called his own grandmother a typical white person. Must be a racist then. He was married by a guy who spouted numerous racist and anti-american crap for decades. Obama must be a racist if he allowed a racist to marry him. Obama invited a proven racist and anti semite, Al Sharpton to the white house countless times. Must be a racist if you get advice from racists. He married a woman who said she was proud of her country for the first time, only AFTER her husband become president. First lady is a legit anti-american bigot I guess? Hey, he married her, so.... See where this is going? We can interpret racism from anything, but I guess its only racist racist if the right people say its racist? Like its not really RAPE rape. Just sort of rape? Basically, if people say something is racist when they interpret nearly EVERYTHING as racist, then their opinion means NOTHING. They're just insane. You're not racist for criticising a woman of color. If that's the standard than sheeeit, our country is ****ing doomed, because no black person is allowed criticize anyone white. Have to uphold a standard here. Democrats have opened up a can of worms and are actively attempting to destroy us all. Destroy any sort of discourse, since if people of different colors aren't allowed to speak to each other anymore, than someone is going to lose and its not going to be the people who hold most of the strings, unless they're suicidal. The problem is, what happens to all those white Democrats protecting these CRAZIES? Guess who will be the next ones on the chopping block, because this squad is only the start of the pandoras box they're attempting to open. I'd say, the Russians are controlling these women, because they planning to do a crap load more damage than Trump ever has=) At least its more believable, hehe.
Conservapedia defines cultural Marxism as: "[A] revolutionary leftist idea that traditional culture is the source of oppression in the modern world." Would you really care to assert that these four women do not adhere to that belief? If it were balanced with some glorification of the country in other ways, perhaps not. But any laundry list of what is wrong with this country, with no similar (except longer) list of what is right with it, does, indeed, suggest that the speakers consider this country to be "totally repugnant." It is certainly not my "personal opinion" that these women have been described as communists by Matthew Continetti--Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Free Beacon--and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC). If you wish to demur from their views, then you are certainly free to do so. But I stated a fact--not a mere "opinion."
