You belabored this point quite a bit unless you’re simply objecting to my use of the word “must”?
I was merely taking fault with the bad logic. While I agree that Trump’s economic policy is more white-centric than previous presidents, I personally think Trump merely stoked the racist fires to get himself elected, and he isn’t personally all that racist (in comparison to his peers, I also acknowledge Trump’s an old rich entitled white guy so he’s going to be more racist than a 20something college kid from Detroit).
Think that’s in reference to Trump repeatedly demonizing non whites in an effort to pander to the white nationalists and get himself elected.
Okay, fair enough. I do disagree on the leap. To invoke race as a mitigating factor it says something pretty bad about a lot of people. But, I do hold to the notion that on scale, humanity scales toward being more evil than good. And I base that on the evidences of large scale evil behavior through out the world committed by people in the world.
Well if we are splitting hairs, racism the concept cannot do anything without it’s possession in conscious creatures. That doesn’t refer to it being forwardly thought in frontal consciousness.
Lol, whut? He’s automatically more racist than a young college kid from Detroit because he’s old, rich, and white…
You’ve basically just made my point for me so thank you. Ed made it pretty clear he thinks AAs would have voted for Trump if his economic policy was color blind so to speak, but since they didn’t it follows that it (his stance) must be white-centric. As I pointed out, AAs very easily could have been in favor of his pro-manufacturing stance as it could directly help them reach the middle class, but be turned off by all of the other non-sense rhetoric causing them to continue to vote Dem (as AAs do historically) or simply stay home (which occurred as noted previously).
My feelings about Trump have been made abundantly clear in this sub-forum, but this stuff is just getting ridiculous.
I’m not saying he’s automatically more racist, merely that I give old people more leeway before I call them “racist.” In the same way I wouldn’t call every American that existed during slavery a “racist” because I acknowledge part of them is being a product of the times. My grandpa is extremely racist. I hold that against him a lot less than I do my cousin, who is equally racist.
Sorry if that was unclear.
Okay, I get what you’re saying now.
1 Like
Well, yeah–the word must is pretty important when it comes to a discussion. It means ‘I’m right, and anyone who disagrees is wrong.’
Only if you’re of the opinion that all race-related actions derive from conscious, explicitly racist decisions.
That’s ironic, because I don’t. Given this, I suspect people would expect both of us to be arguing the other’s position.
I agree, the word racism implies conscious awareness of the beliefs in question. Which is why you may have noted that I was at pains throughout this discussion to avoid the words racism and racist (unless they were explicitly appropriate).
I think it’s fair to say that the average 70 year-old white male is more likely to harbor racist sentiments than is the average 20 y.o. white male. Do you disagree?
There’s that word again…
I’ve posted this before, but it’s so apropos I’m going to repeat myself:
If it’s not color inclusive then it must be color specific, right? I’m not really a fan of semantics games, to be honest.
Um, ya…
The largest percentage of those unemployed are black so I think it’s fair to say the average black guy is lazier than the average Asian (smallest percentage). Do you disagree?
I base it on visible behavior, not an inference on what they must be thinking. Unless of course they state explicitly what they are thinking, such as ISIS, then I am libel to take their word for it.
Are you an eye doctor, dentist or both?
I’m not playing semantics games. Maybe the word must means something different to you than it does to me.
I do (disagree). And I don’t understand how this counter-example relates to my statement.
Ophthalmologist.
Respectfully, that’s exactly what you’re doing. Either his policy is White-centric or it is not. There’s no in-between. It’s either inclusive of two or more races or it’s exclusive to whites.
I’m not surprised because the example is ridiculous on its face.
You’re making an assumption based on one criterion, age. Age, in and of itself, has nothing to do with whether a person, on average, is racist. Frankly, it’s absurd. As absurd as assuming black people are lazy because they make up the largest percentage of the unemployed.
Every 70 year old alive today lived through the civil rights movement and it was during one of the most impressionable periods of their lives. They had the opportunity to hear MLK Jr. speak in real life. They’ve helped steer the nation towards equality between races and genders for that matter most 20-somethings can’t even fathom.
Why in the world would you automatically assume they’re, on average, more racist than some 20-year-old white kid?
Isn’t the concept of the phrase “white-centric” by definition in the in between? Something being “centered” around whites doesn’t mean it’s “exclusively” white. If I ran for office on a platform of “help the poor” would that be the same as saying I don’t care about anyone but the poor, as there’s no middle ground?
Quick question. Do you have a problem with that assumption because the logic isn’t sound, or because you don’t believe older people are more racist than younger people on average?
I agree, his policy is one or the other. But this particular sidebar is about what I claimed his policy to be, not about what his policy is. My whole point (re this must stuff) is simply that I never stuck a flag in the ground proclaiming ‘I know for certain that Trump’s policy was white-centric!’ Rather, I presented an argument (compelling only to me, apparently) to this effect.
I guess my experience is different from yours. I know a greater number of racist old folks than I do young people.
But you’re right about the boomers–the data indicates there’s not much difference between them and millennials re racist attitudes.
The data are not with you on this score. See the Silent Generation numbers in the link above.
In the context of this thread, white-centric was being used to denote exclusivity to whites.
I have a problem with make sweeping generalizations about groups of people.
Okay, fair enough.
Get yourself an Xbox and play Call of Duty online for about 5 minutes. I bet your tune will change.
You just posted a link that stated there was no “meaningful difference” between people born from 1946 - 1981.
Regarding the silent generation, I think context matters. You’re talking about American’s that grew up during the depression. I’m not sure on the numbers, but I’m seeing as high as 50% of black American’s were out of work. So when you ask the question, “rate blacks lazier/less hardworking than whites” it doesn’t surprise me a whole lot that this generation would answer yes with such a large percentage out of work.
Plus, and I’ve said this many times before, measuring generations against each other is folly. You’re (general you) trying to apply today’s norms to generations with a completely different set of cultural circumstances.
I’d love to know how many of the silent generation they even found for the survey.
Plus, as PBS notes, how you ask the question matters.
Was that stated somewhere? I must have missed it.
Personally I think the generalization about young people that they aren’t less racist than a group of people that grew up in a time where being racist was socially acceptable seems more egregious (sp?). Seems weird to assume zero progress has been made on a wide scale re: racist tendencies.
This is the exact reason I said
That being said, it doesn’t really matter. These people exist in the world today, and should all be judged by the same standards for any metric that gets used practically/literally.
You seem to be trying to have it both ways here. You argued (compellingly) that the life-experiences of Boomers rendered them less likely to be racist (and the data are largely consistent with your argument). Now you’re arguing that the life-experience of the Silent Generation rendered them more likely to be racist. No problem so far. But unlike the Boomers, you seem to want to use this observation to give the SGs a ‘pass’ of sorts with regard to their increased levels of racism, arguing that “context matters.” The question becomes, if the SG’s increased racism is to be dismissed as a happenstance of context, why doesn’t the same logic apply to the decreased racism of the Boomers?
In related news, y’all have probably been following the kerfuffle at ESPN arising from Jemele Hill’s public attack on Trump (as a white supremacist) and stating that he got elected because of white supremacy.
Someone more talented than me needs to put together a meme with Oprah declaring “you’re a white supremacist! You’re a white supremacist! Everyone’s a white supremacist!”.
I like Jemele Hill a lot, actually, and I watch her show from time to time. But it appears Ms. Hill is channeling the Coates theory, to her discredit.
It’s what TB & Ed and then Ed and I were discussing.
I prefer to judge people as individuals not in groups.
Being racist is not socially acceptable today, agreed. So, how do you accurately measure progress? Isn’t it just as plausible that a 75-year-old might voice what a 20 year believes, but will only type on an anonymous forum? If we take Ed’s link as fact, basically nothing has changed regarding the specific question they asked.
Not quite. I am not arguing one generation is more or less racist than another. I am arguing that people should be taken as individuals, not as some collective group. Particularly considering we have one survey that at least I can’t see. I have to rely on WaPo’s interpretation of it, which is reassuring.
That “white centric” means exclusively to whites (as in 100%)? Doesn’t seem to me that’s anywhere near what ED was ever arguing.
Only if one were to believe that racist tendencies are the same in 2017 as they were during a time where bathrooms and drinking fountains were segregated.
1 Like
