Trump allegedly indicted in a Georgia 2020 subversion probe

[RetroGen]

It’s…it’s my daughter, dude. I know what she looks like. I wouldn’t confuse her with a white girl because my daughter isn’t white. I’m discriminating based on this being the wrong person. I might make a mistake and open the door for a different black girl, but that means I need my eyes checked, not that I’m racist.

The point is that the parent engages in discrimination based partly on race, before they confirm identity. Yet this type of discrimination does not fit the common definition of racism. Thus, not all discrimination based upon race is necessarily racist. There are exceptions, and that's what has to be fleshed out in further arguments.

I too engage in similar discrimination frequently. Certain characteristics are helpful for identifying people. But that doesn't necessarily make me racist either.

The key terms 'discrimination' and 'racism' need to be very carefully defined. Yes, it's that equivocation thing again!

 

[titan_tim]

All I will say about it is this... Let's assume you're black, and you are going to pick up your daughter from school, and she's the only black girl in her class. You drive up and see a young black girl and open your door for her to get in. You're discriminating based upon race. That's not racist as commonly understood. Not all discrimination is racist. QED

Sorry bud, I'll have to side with Foxi4 on this one. It's a bad example overall.

Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of others. Opening a door for someone mistakenly would be considered more overly inclusive in acceptance.

 

[Foxi4]

The point is that the parent engages in discrimination based partly on race, before they confirm identity. Yet this type of discrimination does not fit the common definition of racism. Thus, not all discrimination based upon race is necessarily racist. There are exceptions, and that's what has to be fleshed out in further arguments.

I too engage in similar discrimination frequently. Certain characteristics are helpful for identifying people. But that doesn't necessarily make me racist either.

The key terms 'discrimination' and 'racism' need to be very carefully defined. Yes, it's that equivocation thing again!

I’m looking for a specific person. This is a terrible example. I’m not looking for a black woman on the off chance she might be my daughter, I’m looking for my daughter who happens to be black. I’m interested in finding an individual, her immutable characteristics are incidental. I’m not in charge of genetics and my wife didn’t give birth to a blank canvas, this isn’t a choice.

I’ll give you a much better example. You’re an Uber driver, and you reject any ride request that comes from a white user. Your justification is that white people as a group in America enjoyed what you perceive to be preferential treatment and it’s time for black people to be more deserving of service - they get to ride around, and nobody else. In your estimation you do not consider if the person you’re rejecting benefitted from racist discrimination in any way, they might be fresh off the boat for all you know - you have no way of knowing, all you see is a white profile picture. Your rejection is based on their colour alone. You are actively discriminating against people of specific skin colour, and you’ve invented a justification for it to make yourself feel good about it.

I consider that to be racist. Do you think that is racist?

 

[RetroGen]

Sorry bud, I'll have to side with Foxi4 on this one. It's a bad example overall.

Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of others. Opening a door for someone mistakenly would be considered more overly inclusive in acceptance.

Not necessarily. The term has more than one meaning. If I'm helping a friend with his sink and he says "hand me the red pipe wrench from my toolbox", I have to look inside and use discrimination to determine which tool is the pipe wrench. Perhaps he has a couple of pipe wrenches, or other kinds of wrenches, and perhaps in various colors. Discrimination can be as simple as picking out the difference between one thing and another without malice, though it can also mean treating people in a prejudicial way. This is why I said clear definitions are important if we're going to discuss the topic. Regardless, the key terms and their implications would all have to be unpacked to have a proper discussion... and the rightwing catch phrase "all discrimination based on race is racism" does not necessarily hold true, as several counterexamples have demonstrated.

 

[Foxi4]

Not necessarily. If I'm helping a friend with his sink and he says "hand me the red pipe wrench from my toolbox", I have to look inside and use discrimination to determine which tool is the pipe wrench. Perhaps he has a couple of pipe wrenches, or other kinds of wrenches. Discrimination can be as simple as picking out the difference between one thing and another without malice, though it can also mean treating people in a prejudicial way. This is why I said clear definitions are important if we're going to discuss the topic. Regardless, the key terms and their implications would all have to be unpacked to have a proper discussion... and the rightwing catch phrase "all discrimination based on race is racism" does not necessarily hold true, as several counterexamples have demonstrated.

I think you might be confusing discrimination with discernment. The reason why you’re not looking at the blue and green tools is because the wrench that was requested is red, but its colour is not why it was requested. The red wrench is most applicable for the job, the blue one is too small and the green one is too big, and your friend knows this because he knows how his tools look like. The right one happens to be red, which helps you locate it in the toolbox. It would work just as well if it was purple, but it’s not. If, in spite of knowing that the red wrench is most qualified for the job at hand, you choose the green one because it got the least use in the past, you’re a wrenchist. You should pick the wrench based on whether it’s qualified for the job at hand, the colour is irrelevant, it’s the size that matters. I’m sure there’s plenty of yellow wrenches that are the right size out there, and if your friend owned one, you could pick that one, but that wrench didn’t apply for a position in your friend’s toolbox. The colours of the wrenches are incidental to their function.

This is fun.

 

[RetroGen]

So, a person with discriminating taste is necessarily racist? Discernment is a close relative to one of the meanings of the term. There are a few... semantics... fun, but necessary sometimes.

Difficult to quote the relevant page, so the formatting is messed up... regardless, the word has multiple connotations.
Having adequate definitions is important in order to avoid equivocation and other errors.

From Oxford Languages:

dis·crim·i·na·tion
/dəˌskriməˈnāSHən/

noun
noun: discrimination; plural noun: discriminations

1. 1.​
   the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability.
   "victims of racial discrimination"
   h
   Similar:
   prejudice​

​

• 2.​
  recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
  "discrimination between right and wrong"
  h
  Similar:
  differentiation
  ​

distinction

telling the difference​

• the ability to discern what is of high quality; good judgment or taste.
  "those who could afford to buy showed little taste or discrimination"
  h
  Similar:
  discernment

1. • aestheticism
     
     
   • Psychology
     the ability to distinguish between different stimuli.
     "discrimination learning"
2. 3.​
   Electronics
   the selection of a signal having a required characteristic, such as frequency or amplitude, by means of a discriminator that rejects all unwanted signals.​
   ​

 

[lolcatzuru]

Centrist/establishment Democrats suck, but not because they're guilty of everything Trump is. In total agreement that lack of accountability is the problem here, along with a lack of Americans willing to hold their own "team" accountable.

You put the entire nation in danger, you go to prison, and you thank Cthulhu that we didn't push for the death penalty instead.

mind if i screenshot this? i always have people telling me the radicals dont wanna hurt anyone, id like to use this as an example.

Post automatically merged: Aug 26, 2023

So, a person with discriminating taste is necessarily racist? Discernment is a close relative to one of the meanings of the term. There are a few... semantics... fun, but necessary sometimes.

Difficult to quote the relevant page, so the formatting is messed up... regardless, the word has multiple connotations.
Having adequate definitions is important in order to avoid equivocation and other errors.

From Oxford Languages:

dis·crim·i·na·tion
/dəˌskriməˈnāSHən/

noun
noun: discrimination; plural noun: discriminations

1. 1.​
   the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability.
   "victims of racial discrimination"
   h
   Similar:
   prejudice​

​

• 2.​
  recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
  "discrimination between right and wrong"
  h
  Similar:
  differentiation​

distinction

telling the difference​

• the ability to discern what is of high quality; good judgment or taste.
  "those who could afford to buy showed little taste or discrimination"
  h
  Similar:
  discernment

1. 
   
   • aestheticism
     
     
   • Psychology
     the ability to distinguish between different stimuli.
     "discrimination learning"
2. 3.​
   Electronics
   the selection of a signal having a required characteristic, such as frequency or amplitude, by means of a discriminator that rejects all unwanted signals.​
   ​

was this before or after a supreme court justice? this is important

 

[Foxi4]

So, a person with discriminating taste is necessarily racist? Discernment is a close relative to one of the meanings of the term. There are a few... semantics... fun, but necessary sometimes.

Difficult to quote the relevant page, so the formatting is messed up... regardless, the word has multiple connotations.
Having adequate definitions is important in order to avoid equivocation and other errors.

Wrong definition. The subject is racial discrimination, so we’re talking about the first one you listed, obviously - this does not need to be stated. Discernment is closely related (almost synonymous) to discrimination, but very specific - it is the ability to detect, recognise, identify and separate one thing from other (usually similar) things. Courtesy of Merriam-Webster:



When you look at a toolbox, you see a bunch of tools. You can discern which one you need based on how they look, but how they look is immaterial as to *why* you need the tool. The tool has a purpose, so there are other senses involved. Discernment is more mental. You can discern good from evil, but you can’t discriminate against evil - evil is a concept. What you’re thinking of is that you can discriminate between two things, like pears and apples, but you can’t discriminate against apples - that’s just silly. What you’re actually doing is discerning based on the differences between the two fruits because you need apples for an apple pie. Apple is the most appropriate fruit for an apple pie, not because it’s green or red, but because it’s an apple and that’s what’s needed for an apple pie.

 

[RetroGen]

I totally discriminate against crab apples. They can all rot in hell for all I care.

 

[Foxi4]

I totally discriminate against crab apples. They can all rot in hell for all I care.

What if you just never had a good crab apple? I think it’s applist to discriminate against a whole subset of apples based on their variety. I bet I could bake you a mean apple pie with some good crab apples. On the flip side, if I forced you to have 50% crab apples in every single pie you eat from this point onwards, disregarding your taste for different varieties, that’d be pretty applist of me. It wouldn’t be a mean pie, it’d just be mean, to you and the apples. I’m sure there’s a couple of Pink Ladies that want to get baked too, but they won’t get to because Big Bakery decided that it’s illegal for me to put them in there.

 

[SeltzerMist]

Wait are there good crab apples?!

 

[Foxi4]

Wait are there good crab apples?!

Sure. Due to their flavour they’re generally better when processed, especially if mixed in with other apples. They’re great for jams. They’re not the only ones either, Rome apples are incredibly mushy and soggy unless cooked, most people find them unpleasant otherwise. Other apples are better raw, you don’t want to lose that juicy crisp. All apples can be good, and there’s nothing wrong with apple mixing. In fact, a pie, or a jam, or a sauce with just one kind of apples in it is kind of boring.

 

[Xzi]

mind if i screenshot this? i always have people telling me the radicals dont wanna hurt anyone, id like to use this as an example.

Nothing radical about enforcing the constitution, you just don't like that it's your guy that has run afoul of it.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Even benign anthropomorphism is racist (cit Legion)

 

[Foxi4]

Even benign anthropomorphism is racist (cit Legion)

Stop being a bad apple.

 

[smf]

That is not true - not according to me, but according to the IRS and the Treasury Department.

Can you show the evidence for this?

 

[Foxi4]

Can you show the evidence for this?

Already posted somewhere in this thread, it’s been pages since we finished talking about the TCJA. Go a few pages back and you’re guaranteed to find it, I’m not interested in retreading the same river after it’s dried up.

 

[smf]

People wonder why there’s political division in America, and a lot of it stems from a lack of accountability. We didn’t do it, it was the other guys.

So your guy Trump had no accountability during his entire life, but it's only after he lost with a capital L that you want politicians to be held accountable.

You don't want him held accountable for his bad policies, because they feed into your prejudice.

Got it.

Already posted somewhere in this thread, it’s been pages since we finished talking about the TCJA. Go a few pages back and you’re guaranteed to find it, I’m not interested in retreading the same river after it’s dried up.

All the evidence I've found points to it being bad for low and middle income people, so the fact you didn't post the evidence when you made the claim and now refuse to post it because it was pages ago (yeah I have a life).

I'm going to continue with the correct assumption that Trumps tax policies are just more corruption from the liar in chief.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/feder...ax-law-largely-leaves-low-and-moderate-income
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/09/trump-tax-cuts-helped-billionaires-pay-less

If your "evidence" was from the time Trump enacted the policy then it's kinda biased, as the liar always lies. People who support Trump just like being conned. At least it's a white man telling you things you want to hear that is conning you eh

What you’re thinking of is that you can discriminate between two things, like pears and apples, but you can’t discriminate against apples - that’s just silly.

I'm not sure where you are going with that, but you are completely wrong.

If you hold views that apple trees attract vermin, so you go round burning down trees and organizing rallies against apple trees being planted near your vermin free houses. Then force all the apple trees to be planted in an area where there is a high chance of vermin, which then reinforces your view that they do in fact attract vermin.

Then you are discriminating against apple trees.

 

[Foxi4]

So your guy Trump had no accountability during his entire life, but it's only after he lost with a capital L that you want politicians to be held accountable.

You don't want him held accountable for his bad policies, because they feed into your prejudice.

Got it.

First of all, when did I say that? You just quoted me saying the exact opposite. Secondly, infractions are in the eyes of the beholder. A jury can find someone innocent because they believe they’re innocent of what they’re accused of, but it’s also entitled to find someone innocent because they consider the law unjust. Likewise, an infraction that you might find to be severe I could consider benign at best. For instance, I don’t care about Bill Clinton getting his flagpole polished in the Oval Office - that’s between him and Monica Lewinsky. I also don’t care that he lied about it under oath before Congress because it’s an inappropriate question that shouldn’t have been asked, his flagpole and its polishing schedule are a private matter that nobody should be interested in. I understand that it was a perjury trap, but I can disagree with the verdict based on these circumstances. These situations are nuanced.

So your guy Trump had no accountability during his entire life, but it's only after he lost with a capital L that you want politicians to be held accountable.

You don't want him held accountable for his bad policies, because they feed into your prejudice.

Got it.


All the evidence I've found points to it being bad for low and middle income people, so the fact you didn't post the evidence when you made the claim and now refuse to post it because it was pages ago (yeah I have a life).

I'm going to continue with the correct assumption that Trumps tax policies are just more corruption from the liar in chief.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/feder...ax-law-largely-leaves-low-and-moderate-income
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/09/trump-tax-cuts-helped-billionaires-pay-less

If your "evidence" was from the time Trump enacted the policy then it's kinda biased, as the liar always lies. People who support Trump just like being conned. At least it's a white man telling you things you want to hear that is conning you eh

If you insist.

https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-...e-youre-wrong-about-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act

If you “don’t like the source” then I guess you can just head straight to irs.gov to confirm these findings. For the record, Bernie Sanders got three Pinocchios for making the exact same claim, and the Washington Post is hardly a pro-Trump outlet. As stated in the article below, the primary beneficiaries of the bill are in the bottom 80% of the income scale.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...7-tax-cut-went-wealthiest-large-corporations/

I’m still uninterested in discussing this, percentage-wise the low-to-middle income earners received the biggest cuts. The only contention in opposition to this (as stated in the WaPo article) is that wealthier filers saved a higher dollar amount, which is a given considering their significantly higher incomes. The core beneficiaries of the bill are in the middle of the scale.

I'm not sure where you are going with that, but you are completely wrong.

If you hold views that apple trees attract vermin, so you go round burning down trees and organizing rallies against apple trees being planted near your vermin free houses. Then force all the apple trees to be planted in an area where there is a high chance of vermin, which then reinforces your view that they do in fact attract vermin.

Then you are discriminating against apple trees.

In your example you are prejudiced against vermin and you’re adjusting your environment to prevent vermin from spreading based on the belief that they’re attracted to apple trees. You’d still eat an apple, you’d buy one in a store, you might enjoy their flavour, you just don’t want them growing near your house because you don’t like vermin. Trees are not sentient beings, they’re part of the environment. Your dislike of apple trees is predicated on your dislike of vermin, not on any immutable characteristic of the trees. You’d make a better argument if you said that the belief was apple tree pollen and the consumption of apples causing allergies when it’s not the case - that’s more closely connected to the characteristics of the tree. With that being said, you’re stretching the definition of discrimination pretty thin to make a laboured point that doesn’t translate well to humans. Good try, but no.

 

[smf]

You’d still eat an apple, you’d buy one in a store, you might enjoy their flavour, you just don’t want them growing near your house because you don’t like vermin.

Sure and people might think they are ok with black people ("I have a black friend, he's one of the good ones" for example), but don't want to live in an area with too many black people because they associate black people with crime.

That is what discrimination is.

You don't have to dress in a white robe and leave burning crosses on peoples lawn to be racist, you can also hold racial prejudices.