Food for Thought-What Side Of History Do You Wish To Be ON?

1. 84

   gmwilliamsposted 7 years ago

   
   Trump has sunk to a new low by uttering a detestable racist statement.  His staff & supporters claim that he never uttered such a statement although strong language was used.  His immigration policies are coming under question.  Rightfully, people are incensed by Trump's sociopolitical stance.   However, there are some who defend Trump, maintaining that he wants a high standard of living for Americans & wants to restore America to its previous greatness.  These same people decry what America has become.   Trump is seen as a dangerous menace & even as an enemy to America while there are those who view him as an unheralded savior who is making America great again.  What side of history are YOU on?  Why?

   replyreport
   1. 85

      GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      GM, can you support your determination that "the statement" was a racist one? It may have been detestable, but multiple other comments about it being racist have failed to offer support for that contention.
      
      In the context it was used - merit-based immigration quotas,  can you justify your claim it is racist?
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Detestable is bad enough, just as bad as racist.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            "Detestable" is a relative word, based solely on the opinion of the speaker.  "Racist" is a statement of fact, absolute, based on the definition of the term and past events (which few on these forums seem to understand).

            replyreport
            1. 79

               Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

               "Detestable" is a relative word, based solely on the opinion of the speaker."
               
               Yet, we cannot ignore the audience and in this case with Trump, the audience that described his diatribe as just that, "detestable", is quite large.

               replyreport
               1. 76

                  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  It is absolutely large...if you choose to define it that way.  Or you could define it as "quite small" or even "nonexistent". 
                  
                  You forgot to mention the rest of the story: ""Detestable" is a relative word, based solely on the opinion of the speaker."  And, of course, the assumption that everyone found the statement "detestable" is quite an exaggeration; quite a few seem to have found it true even if the terminology was stronger than expected.

                  replyreport
         2. 85

            GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Right, and offensive was the same as racist too. Wasn't that your logic before?
            
            Racist used to be seen as, and rightly so, one of the worst labels to be owned. But now, it is no worse than being offensive or detestable? Not by my logic.
            
            Its like the F-word, (to me), it used to mean something specific, it was an extreme, now it's just an everyday word. Is that where racist is going?
            
            GA

            replyreport
   2. 39

      Shogunposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Does it even matter any more? There is no defense of using the term "shithole." Ironically, defenders argue he actually said "shithouse" instead of "shithole," but I believe this publication's summation makes sense: "But overall, the hole-versus-house controversy is a lesson in how politicians use hair-splitting over a detail to justify putting out a narrative designed to mislead the public".

      replyreport
      1. 73

         mrpopoposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         For a president using it in public? Maybe - although from what I understand, the statement was made in private.
         
         Generally speaking? There are plenty of places in the world where the term would apply. The truth is as good defense as any.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I thought I saw where it was made in a behind-closed-doors meeting.  Not public, but not really private either.  Too bad, too because if there were videos there might not be so much conflict.

            replyreport
2. 93

   blueheronposted 7 years ago

   Things and actions are what they are...unless you are in favor of drug gang wars, chaos, lack of sanitation, and high morbidity and mortality rates from preventable diseases.
   
   While my understanding is that Trump may or may not have used the word "shithole," sometimes polite expressions like "sub-optimal" seem to miss the mark.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      "Things and actions are what they are...unless you are in favor of drug gang wars, chaos, lack of sanitation, and high morbidity and mortality rates from preventable diseases. "
      
      Odd how those obvious problems somehow get translated as "racist" - as being about skin color instead of poverty and violence.  I confess I don't follow the reasoning there.

      replyreport
      1. 73

         mrpopoposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         I can see it happening in one of two ways. The statements can be seen as racist if the judgement about Donald Trump being racist is already made up. Thus if he's racist, his statement must be coming from a racist place even if it's not racist on the surface. He's not saying these countries are sh*tholes because they have serious problems... he's saying these countries are shi*tholes because their inhabitants are mainly black. How do we know that? Well, he's racist.
         
         That's one possibility. The other is that if they view these problems through a racial lens, they may be thinking of these problems as exclusively black or minority problems. That's how you get statements like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6IlGoeDIUQ
         
         Or this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odB1wWPqSlE
         
         Thus, criticism of these problems (or trying to solve these problems f.i. with laws) is branded racist.
         
         Of course, the accusation of racism by itself is a powerful weapon, so that alone may be the reasoning.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Good appraisal.  The statements can be considered racist because:
            
            Trump is assumed to be racist so anything said must be racist, too.
            The listener is racist and sees everything as racist.
            The claim is a weapon
            
            Of course, that doesn't include that the statement actually was racist.  Reasonable as it was not.

            replyreport
3. 69

   Live to Learnposted 7 years ago

   None of this is as black and white as the  naysayers on both sides would love it to be.
   
   Comments, such as this OP, will probably go down in the annals of history as examples of the divisiveness we willingly chose during this era.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      +1

      replyreport