The Student Room Group

Why do people think Donald Trump is racist?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Farm_Ecology
There we go what?

Do you really need evidence that people can be forced or pressured into organizations they don't agree with? Or that they may be ignorant as to the intentions of said organizations? The band Prussian Blue spring to mind, as do the Hitler Youth, not to mention the many people being forced to work for ISIS.

Its simple, I prefer to judge someones views on what those views are, not what I assume those views are.


1) proof that you did say there are 'plenty of people'.

2) If you're gonna say there are a considerable number of people that are forced into such groups, im gonna need proof. Dont make assumptions based on fascist groups that exist in the past. Hitler youth - They werent forced, they agreed with the fascist views. ISIS - Whilst they are forced to work for them, doesnt mean they are part of ISIS. Only those who agree with the radical views 'join' ISIS

3) Yes, you can judge someones views perfectly well with the groups they are associated with. Nothing wrong or false with that. A KKK member is obviously a racist etc etc.
Original post by balanced
Please, "Race, as a social construct, is a group of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics.".

Muslims are not a race. So therefore, it is impossible to be racist to Muslims in particular.


You can be a bigot towards a religious group, which he is. I didn't call him a racist with regards to his views towards Muslims. What makes him a likely racist is his derogatory views about Mexicans, the way he refuses to denounce his KKK supporters and the way he insisted that Obama was not born in America, attempting to prove his claim was true. Could you see him doing the same with a White president?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by dean01234

He settled the case. And then changed operating practices. There isn't a quota, but he (or his company) lied to potential black clients saying there was no availability when there really was. There were also different financial requirements that had to be met for black people.

Businesses often discriminate against different groups of consumers (e.g. male/female at clubs).


The onus is on you to prove that he did so in a way that made it racist - a good step would be to substantiate some of your assertions.


In the press conference, you can tell that he really doesn't care. He's saying it because he knows he has to. He didn't believe it in the slightest.

He has literally said he "disavow:undefined:" David Duke. If you do not believe him that is your problem, but him saying that directly refutes your claim that he refused to do so.


Two men beat up a homeless Latino man, broke his nose and urinated on him in Trumps name. He responded by saying that he doesn't condone violence, but that we need that energy and passion. This was pretty positive in favor of the attackers, I don't see how almost supporting them isn't racist.

Source? And even by your admission he said he doesn't condone violence. Conflating beating a homeless man with "energy" is disgusting, I agree, but hardly sufficient grounds to say he's racist.


Maybe its not racist

Progress.


Racist, maybe not.

More progress.


Fine, directly maybe this isn't racist.

We are on a roll!


Which isn't the kind of person I would want in any position of power.

No one said you have to support his campaign. But if you are going to make such a strong accusation you have to be able to give concrete proof to support it, which we have established you have not done.
Original post by sunni money


Progress.

More progress.

We are on a roll!



I'm going to come back to the rest of what you said later. For now I just want to point out that you ignored the part where he suggested the mass murder of civilians because it was aimed at people of a certain religion and not a race. But you go ahead and keep defending him.
Original post by dean01234
For now I just want to point out that you ignored the part where he suggested the mass murder of civilians because it was aimed at people of a certain religion and not a race.

Well your assertion was that he is racist, and that may be evidence of his bigotry or hatred of a religion, but is irrelevant with regards to substantiating your assertion (which I am disputing).
Original post by sunni money
Well your assertion was that he is racist, and that may be evidence of his bigotry or hatred of a religion, but is irrelevant with regards to substantiating your assertion (which I am disputing).


If you read my posts, I don't actually claim he is racist. I've consistently maintained that he may just be appealing to racism if he isn't racist himself. Also I don't see how it is irrelevant, if someone is that xenophobic and that hateful its makes racism very believable.
Original post by dean01234
If you read my posts, I don't actually claim he is racist. I've consistently maintained that he may just be appealing to racism if he isn't racist himself. Also I don't see how it is irrelevant, if someone is that xenophobic and that hateful its makes racism very believable.

Your original post was to answer the thread title asking why people think he is racist, and you did this by citing examples that you believe justifiably lead people to believe he is racist.


I do not deny that some of those things may cause people to believe he is racist, but that doesn't mean he actually is.
Original post by sunni money
Your original post was to answer the thread title asking why people think he is racist, and you did this by citing examples that you believe justifiably lead people to believe he is racist.


I do not deny that some of those things may cause people to believe he is racist, but that doesn't mean he actually is.


Thank you for acknowledging that my post was answering the posed question.
Original post by dean01234
Thank you for acknowledging that my post was answering the posed question.

And thank for subsequently conceding that many of the points you raised do not show that he is a racist.

Spoiler

Original post by dean01234
Thats already been covered in thread.

But fine, when you specifically focus on race there are less examples. But I feel like saying things like that gets trump off on a technicality. He's definitely xenophobic and bigoted, with suggestions towards racism.


He isn't irrationally against illegal immigrants, so he isn't xenophobic.
Original post by WBZ144
You can be a bigot towards a religious group, which he is. I didn't call him a racist with regards to his views towards Muslims. What makes him a likely racist is his derogatory views about Mexicans, the way he refuses to denounce his KKK supporters and the way he insisted that Obama was not born in America, attempting to prove his claim was true. Could you see him doing the same with a White president?


You may not have realised but he already has done the same against a white presidential candidate, Ted Cruz. :toofunny:
Trump claims, now proved falsely, that Cruz cannot be the president because he is Canadian.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-01-27/ted-cruz-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen-according-to-the-constitution
PRSOM, Labeling everything to silence it is, in a mild form, fascism, but hey it's popular on TSR and the mods like it so what's wrong.
Original post by A$aprocky
1) proof that you did say there are 'plenty of people'..


I never denied this.

Original post by A$aprocky
2) If you're gonna say there are a considerable number of people that are forced into such groups, im gonna need proof.


Your starting to build a strawman there. What I'm concerned with is whether there it's possible for a person to be associated with an organization, and not agree with said organization. The threshold for me is very small, similar to Capital punishment, where even if one innocent person is treated as Guilty, that is enough for me to disagree with capital punishment.

I will admit it will be difficult to get statistics on how many people are in this situation, because it's not something you can really check for.

Original post by A$aprocky
Dont make assumptions based on fascist groups that exist in the past. Hitler youth - They werent forced, they agreed with the fascist views. ISIS - Whilst they are forced to work for them, doesnt mean they are part of ISIS. Only those who agree with the radical views 'join' ISIS



Thats why I gave the example of Prussian Blue. Various members of Scientology being other examples. This isn't just specific to extremist groups. If someone can be, for example, a registered member of the Labour party but not actually support their leader or all of their policies, I see no reason why this wouldn't apply to other groups.
[QUOTE="Farm_Ecology;63588413"]I never denied this.



Your starting to build a strawman there. What I'm concerned with is whether there it's possible for a person to be associated with an organization, and not agree with said organization. The threshold for me is very small, similar to Capital punishment, where even if one innocent person is treated as Guilty, that is enough for me to disagree with capital punishment.

I will admit it will be difficult to get statistics on how many people are in this situation, because it's not something you can really check for.


Original post by Farm_Ecology
I never denied this.



Your starting to build a strawman there. What I'm concerned with is whether there it's possible for a person to be associated with an organization, and not agree with said organization. The threshold for me is very small, similar to Capital punishment, where even if one innocent person is treated as Guilty, that is enough for me to disagree with capital punishment.

I will admit it will be difficult to get statistics on how many people are in this situation, because it's not something you can really check for.




Thats why I gave the example of Prussian Blue. Various members of Scientology being other examples. This isn't just specific to extremist groups. If someone can be, for example, a registered member of the Labour party but not actually support their leader or all of their policies, I see no reason why this wouldn't apply to other groups.


You cant make statements if you have no proof.

Your labour party comparison is wrong too. Maybe they wont agree with the leader or the policies but they generally are left wing. A right wing person wont support labour.

Being associated with a group means the person agrees with the general ideas of the group. You're spiralling of the original argument now, scraping the bottom of the barrel for points. I've provided rebuttal to your points and you've simply ignored them and just wasted my time

I think ive demonstrated the stupidity behind your argument, please dont continue, you're just wasting your own time trying to argue something so fundementally wrong.
Original post by balanced
You may not have realised but he already has done the same against a white presidential candidate, Ted Cruz. :toofunny:
Trump claims, now proved falsely, that Cruz cannot be the president because he is Canadian.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-01-27/ted-cruz-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen-according-to-the-constitution


That's different because Obama was actually born in the US but Trump claimed that he was lying and sent "investigators" over to Hawaii to prove it. Obama even ended up producing a copy of his birth certificate to shut Trump up.
What is there to analyse? Everything that he says is utterly simplistic for his simple-minded supporters.
Original post by A$aprocky

You cant make statements if you have no proof.


I have provided several examples of people who are members or associated with groups but do not agree with them.

Original post by A$aprocky
Your labour party comparison is wrong too. Maybe they wont agree with the leader or the policies but they generally are left wing. A right wing person wont support labour.


Again, no. You can be a member of the labour party and not actively support them. You might even vote conservative.

Original post by A$aprocky
Being associated with a group means the person agrees with the general ideas of the group. You're spiralling of the original argument now, scraping the bottom of the barrel for points. I've provided rebuttal to your points and you've simply ignored them and just wasted my time


You havent provided any points, you've just kept insisting that a persons views are defined by their membership, and not their views. I've tried to explain why this isn't the case. A persons membership reflects their views, not the other way around.

Original post by A$aprocky
please dont continue, you're just wasting your own time.


I agree with this part. This is getting ridiculous.
Original post by Farm_Ecology
I have provided several examples of people who are members or associated with groups but do not agree with them.



Again, no. You can be a member of the labour party and not actively support them. You might even vote conservative.


Seriously? :biggrin::biggrin: You must be joking right?

You havent provided any points, you've just kept insisting that a persons views are defined by their membership, and not their views. I've tried to explain why this isn't the case. A persons membership reflects their views, not the other way around.

You've now contradicted yourself. Please, your argument is over.

I agree with this part. This is getting ridiculous.
Original post by balanced
He isn't irrationally against illegal immigrants, so he isn't xenophobic.


He's against all immigration, I'd say that qualifies.
Original post by sunni money
And thank for subsequently conceding that many of the points you raised do not show that he is a racist.

Spoiler



I've just alerted the good people at the Oxford English dictionary that the definition of many has now been changed to mean 3. Thank you for your contribution to the English language.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending