Jump to content
Ice_nine

For those who defend Trump

Recommended Posts

Amppax    2,679
Amppax
3 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I do not see a single accusation of racism in that article. Did I miss something? It just seemed like a long, well-written complaint about a 'radical right-winger'.

That connection seems a bit too tenuous to me. Yes, there is an undeniable racist element in the alt-right. Yes, Bannon is a key figure in the alt-right. Unless there is something I am missing, I do not see enough from these facts alone to conclude that Bannon supports the racist faction of the alt-right. And simple guilt by association is too weak; those are the tactics from progressives that led to Trump's victory in the first place.

I don't see how it's a tenuous connection, Bannon basically engineered his rise on the back of the alt-right, a movement which, at its best, is simply offensive for the sake of causing outrage. Guilt by association is only weak if you can argue that one is ignorant of the obvious links between the alt-right and white nationalism. I think that argument is just not plausible. Yiannopolous' piece is full of praise for "intellectuals" such as Richard Spencer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
philothea    20
philothea
8 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I do not see a single accusation of racism in that article. Did I miss something? It just seemed like a long, well-written complaint about a 'radical right-winger'.

Right. That was why I said "It seems to me that he's not personally a racist." :) (Though it may be academic if he does so much to promote other racists.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nihil Obstat    9,205
Nihil Obstat
10 minutes ago, Amppax said:

I don't see how it's a tenuous connection, Bannon basically engineered his rise on the back of the alt-right, a movement which, at its best, is simply offensive for the sake of causing outrage. Guilt by association is only weak if you can argue that one is ignorant of the obvious links between the alt-right and white nationalism. I think that argument is just not plausible. Yiannopolous' piece is full of praise for "intellectuals" such as Richard Spencer. 

Offensive for the sake of being offensive, essentially trolling, is a far cry from actual racism though. I think there is a fair argument to be made that even some of the racism in the alt-right is just particularly vulgar trolling. Personally I think that the racist fringe of the alt-right, while certainly present, is not as widespread as some would have us believe. I am open to being proven wrong though. I just want to see more than opinion pieces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
philothea    20
philothea

Nevermind racism. Having the man who is arguably the world's foremost professional troll as the president's chief strategist is unnerving. What kind of strategies is he likely to use?

I do wish people would focus less on the supporting fringe alt-right folks. They're not the real issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amppax    2,679
Amppax
26 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Offensive for the sake of being offensive, essentially trolling, is a far cry from actual racism though. I think there is a fair argument to be made that even some of the racism in the alt-right is just particularly vulgar trolling. Personally I think that the racist fringe of the alt-right, while certainly present, is not as widespread as some would have us believe. I am open to being proven wrong though. I just want to see more than opinion pieces.

What Breitbart has tried to do under Bannon's leadership, however, is draw a distinction between "real" racism and white identity politics. I'm basing this on the articles on the alt-right published at Breitbart. Such a distinction is nonsense, and simply legitimizes racism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nihil Obstat    9,205
Nihil Obstat
5 minutes ago, Amppax said:

What Breitbart has tried to do under Bannon's leadership, however, is draw a distinction between "real" racism and white identity politics. I'm basing this on the articles on the alt-right published at Breitbart. Such a distinction is nonsense, and simply legitimizes racism. 

Perhaps. I am not familiar with that content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amppax    2,679
Amppax
3 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Perhaps. I am not familiar with that content.

Again, I think Yiannopolous's article representative. In it he holds up Richard Spencer and others up as legitimate pillars of the alt-right, the same figures Trump and Bannon are now disavowing and claiming they would never and have never promoted. Perhaps the argument could be made that Bannon didn't write the article, therefore isn't responsible. 

That article isn't the only example, simply the easiest to hold up as representative. 

Edited by Amppax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nihil Obstat    9,205
Nihil Obstat

At the same time, Yiannopoulos seems to be the perfect example of a provocateur. I have not read the article, but is it a possibility that his support for that guy (with whom I am also not familiar) can be qualified in that manner? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amppax    2,679
Amppax
8 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

At the same time, Yiannopoulos seems to be the perfect example of a provocateur. I have not read the article, but is it a possibility that his support for that guy (with whom I am also not familiar) can be qualified in that manner? 

Perhaps. Though he pretty explicitly tries to draw a line between Spencer and "real" racism, what he describes in the article as the "1488ers." There's other articles one could look at, as well. 

I think the most charitable interpretation of Bannon is that he's two steps removed from the alt-right. Basically Bannon --> Milo --> Alt-Right. I suppose some are fine with that. 

Edited by Amppax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nihil Obstat    9,205
Nihil Obstat

Backing up a bit, to what extent should we say that being associated with potentially racist people does actively legitimize racism? Morally speaking it strikes me as falling somewhere in the middle between formal support and formal resistance. What I do not want to say is that being associated with X Y Z is *just as bad* as actually being X Y Z.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amppax    2,679
Amppax
3 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Backing up a bit, to what extent should we say that being associated with potentially racist people does actively legitimize racism? Morally speaking it strikes me as falling somewhere in the middle between formal support and formal resistance. What I do not want to say is that being associated with X Y Z is *just as bad* as actually being X Y Z.

I don't think it's just as bad. I think it's a different kind of bad, and, depending on the prominence of the figure could be more or less wrong. For example, supporting or defending the remarks of a racist family member at a family gathering as opposed to, hypothetically of course, being closely affiliated with racists as chief adviser to the president-elect. 

I guess my point is this: racism is evil, and should be condemned. Not only did Bannon not condemn racism, he provided it with a very public platform at Breitbart. This, I think, should be disqualifying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Socrates    1,983
Socrates
17 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

These are the kind of people that also support him http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/richard-spencer-speech-npi/508379/

Thoughts?

 These sorts of guilt-by-association "XYZ horrible persons support Candidate X; therefore Candidate X is evil and we should support Candidate Y instead" "arguments" are generally garbage.

For what it's worth, Hillary Clinton was endorsed by the American Communist Party, NARAL and pretty much every baby-killing organization out there, groups with ties to radical Islamic groups, radical homosexual groups, and (interestingly enough) the Grand Dragon of the California KKK.

As the election is over, I'm really not sure what the point of your post/thread is.  I didn't support Trump in the GOP primary, and am not an across-the-board defender of everything he does, but I still have yet to see anything to make me regret that he rather than Hillary got the nomination, nor do I regret for a second voting for him to keep Hillary out of the White House.

Hillary lost.  Get over it.

8 hours ago, CatherineM said:

Lot of neo-nazis voted for Romney and Bush. They're citizens and allowed to vote like the rest of us. 

Oh, didn't you know that all Republicans are Nazis and racists.  So it's very, very urgent that everybody vote Dem before the GOP resurrects Adolf Hitler, throws all the Jews in death camps, and re-institutes slavery!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luigi    3,349
Luigi

Now wait - if it's permissible for a strongly liberal president to appoint strongly liberal cabinet members (what I might call the alt-left even though they don't), then it must be permissible for a strongly conservative president to appoint strongly conservative cabinet members (the alt-left, whoever coined that name).

I had no use whatsoever for any one of Obama's cabinet members (with the possible exception of John Kerry, who may not be all that effective, but I'm not sure anyone in that position could be, and he works very hard at his job) for the last eight years, but I didn't get on social media - or a Catholic discussion board - to lambast Obama or his appointees.

Let's just all take a breath here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace    777
Peace
20 minutes ago, Socrates said:

 Hillary lost.  Get over it.

Come on now. You know plenty well that if Hillary won you would be moaning and complaining to everyone and their uncle for the next 4 years, just like you have been griping about president Obama for the past 8.

The fact that most of the racist groups in the USA seem to flock to Trump is a legitimate topic for discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
little2add    475
little2add
32 minutes ago, Peace said:

The fact that most of the racist groups in the USA seem to flock to Trump is a legitimate topic for discussion.

Isn't a free election a b*tch

the people have spoken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nihil Obstat    9,205
Nihil Obstat

Whether we like it or not, the western liberal democratic system is set up specifically so that even the most virulent, extreme racist gets an equal say in the formation of his government. That is a feature, not a bug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nihil Obstat    9,205
Nihil Obstat
5 hours ago, Amppax said:

I don't think it's just as bad. I think it's a different kind of bad, and, depending on the prominence of the figure could be more or less wrong. For example, supporting or defending the remarks of a racist family member at a family gathering as opposed to, hypothetically of course, being closely affiliated with racists as chief adviser to the president-elect. 

I guess my point is this: racism is evil, and should be condemned. Not only did Bannon not condemn racism, he provided it with a very public platform at Breitbart. This, I think, should be disqualifying. 

I still have not had the chance to read the link you sent me, but I will ask anyway: what racist content has Breitbart hosted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×