SH wrote:
timbasile wrote:
Rhetorical flourish. I meant "didn't give enough weight to" My point was more that in saying that this is purely about attributes of countries (this country is bad, so what if he called it bad), what we also need to do is look at his statements in the context of all the other crap that he spews. In this case, given what we know what Trump has already said things with racial overtones - his comments about Hatians having AIDS and Nigerians living in huts being especially noteworthy- his subsequent comments about people from those countries should also be interpreted in light about what he has already said about them.
Racial overtones? Your cherry picked context? No thanks.
I have a question. Why is it so important to get to racist? Why isn't a critique of any particular policy good enough?
In this case I have to admire JasoninHalifax for his ability to approach these matters -- whether we agree or disagree.
Ignorant people telling you how you really feel about an issue gets old fast.
How is it cherry-picked? All I'm saying is that when Trump says something that we should fit it into the context of things he's already said. Those things can also be interpreted as racist. Sure, one a off here or there could well be a misunderstanding, but when you get enough of these types of statements a bigger picture emerges. Should I have picked a better context? A different set of statements that Trump has already said? Yes - I fully appreciate that the context of his statement in regards of a discussion on a particular policy. Fine. But when the same words come from someone who on other occasions made remarks that have prompted other "is he racist?" threads then do we not fit those comments within the broader context of what that person has said? I brought up Hatians and Aids and Nigerians in Huts because they're the two comments that are most applicable to these comments, but I could just as easily have brought up Tiki torches or the things he's said about Mexicans.
Let me ask you this question: Let's say that this is a one off and he really didn't mean what I think he means. Fair enough. Why should we give him the benefit of the doubt?
To be honest, I don't think its important to "get to racist" in the sense of gotcha politics and I'm not one to go around hunting for elements of racism in everyday life where none otherwise exists - but the title of the thread deals with whether or not Trump is a racist so its clearly within the scope of discussion.