Trump and racism

[Zymologist]

It's always amusing to watch those who have a cow every time MM uses Breitbart as a source turn around and cite sources like Vox.

Genetic fallacy, bro...genetic fallacy.

[carpedm9587]

It's always amusing to watch those who have a cow every time MM uses Breitbart as a source turn around and cite sources like Vox.

I'm not finding a Vox citation. Did I miss something?

As for Brietbart (or Vox, for that matter), any dismissal of an article solely on the basis of its source is an instance of the genetic fallacy. That does not make all sources equivalent. Some sources, I have to work so hard to sort out the partisan slant and hype from the meat of the claim, that it is simply not worth my time to make the effort. Brietbart is one such site. Their counterpart on the left is Jezebel. Vox is definitely left biased, though not as bad as Jezebel. They are in line with Mother Jones and their right counterpart would be outlets like Fox.

(there is something right in the universe when the counter to Vox is Fox. )

Vox and CNN are about at par. WSJ has a modest right bias, and their counterpart would be outlets like NBC and ABC.

The most unbiased sources I have found include Ballotpedia, FactCheck.org, the Financial Times, Allsides.com (because they literally link you to articles across the spectrum), Mental Floss, Pew, Kaiser, and the Washington Journal (to name a few). There's a pretty good list of centrist outlets here. They are pretty well aligned with Allsides.com and other media classifying sites and publish their methodology. So I have a tendency to focus my reading on the window from left-center bias to right-center-bias because it takes less work. I don't spend a lot of time outside that window, though sometimes a search will take me there.

[Christian3]

I see Trump get called racist a lot. Why should I believe that Trump is a racist?

As has been mentioned, he is white and has a white race car.

And don't forget he also lives in a White House.

The White House was painted white in the 1700's, so that means America is a racist country.

[Zymologist]

Trump has made numerous racist and ethnic insensitive statements, as well as his actions such as the 109(?) White house interns are all white except for one token black. This just the tip of the iceberg of White house racism.

How many black interns would it take for them not to be "token?" Serious question: anyone can answer.

[carpedm9587]

How many black interns would it take for them not to be "token?" Serious question: anyone can answer.

Any intern/person is "token" for any category if the reason for including them is "to avoid accusations of bigotry/prejudice." It's not about the number. When someone has a history of prejudice statements/views, has a history of not having a particularly diverse group of people working for and/or around them, and then there are a couple people here or there to defy the norm, the impression left is "tokenism." Ultimately, only the people involved know what their actual motivations are.

We live in a nation with a wide array of people from a wide array of backgrounds. To not have that diversity reflected in appointed positions, it seems to me, requires a conscious effort to exclude. I find it hard to believe that there are no/few qualified people who are not white.

[rogue06]

How many black interns would it take for them not to be "token?" Serious question: anyone can answer.

Four foot one.

[Zymologist]

Any intern/person is "token" for any category if the reason for including them is "to avoid accusations of bigotry/prejudice." It's not about the number. When someone has a history of prejudice statements/views, has a history of not having a particularly diverse group of people working for and/or around them, and then there are a couple people here or there to defy the norm, the impression left is "tokenism." Ultimately, only the people involved know what their actual motivations are.

We live in a nation with a wide array of people from a wide array of backgrounds. To not have that diversity reflected in appointed positions, it seems to me, requires a conscious effort to exclude. I find it hard to believe that there are no/few qualified people who are not white.

If this is the case, then it seems to me that the number of black interns can't be used as evidence either way, to be consistent. The side accusing Trump of racism doesn't know his motivation for having only one black intern, so the "tokenism" can really only be an impression (as you say). The side defending Trump from the claim of racism can't claim any number of black employees as evidence against racism, because, since the number doesn't matter, "tokenism" could well be the explanation.

In that case, I'd say that the number of black interns is an irrelevant data-point. Seems ironic.

[carpedm9587]

If this is the case, then it seems to me that the number of black interns can't be used as evidence either way, to be consistent. The side accusing Trump of racism doesn't know his motivation for having only one black intern, so the "tokenism" can really only be an impression (as you say). The side defending Trump from the claim of racism can't claim any number of black employees as evidence against racism, because, since the number doesn't matter, "tokenism" could well be the explanation.

In that case, I'd say that the number of black interns is an irrelevant data-point. Seems ironic.

I'm not fond of using the term "token," with respect to these kinds of situations. It's a word that I think reflects badly on both the person making the selection as well as the person selected (and the person using the word as well). I do think that the incredibly undiverse nature of Trump's cabinet, managerial staff in his businesses, interns, and managerial staff in the executive office (and the pattern is consistent in all four venues) coupled with the history of racial comments, racist accusations, racist legal issues, and hesitation in calling out racism, coupled with his generally repugnant moral code and personal characteristics, makes a strong case for this man being racist.

It simply seems to me next to impossible that there could be this much smoke and no fire. If the man had a reputation for honesty and denied the accusations, I would be inclined (as I am with most people) to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, the man is a chronic liar, defends the practice, and even seems to take delight in the practice. I have no basis for granting him the benefit of the doubt.

[shunyadragon]

How many black interns would it take for them not to be "token?" Serious question: anyone can answer.

Token here is singular. One black and 109 white interns in 109 interns is most definitely a token effort. This is not a stand alone problem. It is part of the history of tRumps statements and actions not only as President, but corporate meglomaniac.

[Mountain Man]

It simply seems to me next to impossible that there could be this much smoke and no fire.

The only smoke I see is of the "smoke and mirrors" variety as liberals do everything they possibly can to smear our President, including telling lies about him.

[One Bad Pig]

Trump's character and moral predisposition is an "entirely different subject" than his racism?

I guess I'm not following. Racism/prejudice is a moral issue, and a character issue. I guess I still don't see the pivot.

It is a particular character issue - and in particular, the subject of the thread at hand. You also made no particular attempt to link it to character issues in general, merely pivoted to them.

Trump didn't "drain the swamp." He has increased its scope....

ETA: Your comment to Tass is an interesting one. So, from your perspective, on what basis and with what authority does over 75% of the white evangelical community support Trump, especially when less than 15% of non-white evangelicals do?

White evangelicals tend to align with the Republican Party. Non-white evangelicals (predominantly black, IIRC), tend to align with the Democrats. There's also the subject of the thread at hand, which regardless of its accuracy is not likely to endear him to non-whites, evangelical or otherwise.

[carpedm9587]

It is a particular character issue - and in particular, the subject of the thread at hand. You also made no particular attempt to link it to character issues in general, merely pivoted to them.

I have to admit to being somewhat surprise that I was expected to link "racism" to "character issues." That seems so obvious to me that it does not merit justification. And Trump's general character issues are fairly well documented/known, and even you have acknowledged many of them.

White evangelicals tend to align with the Republican Party. Non-white evangelicals (predominantly black, IIRC), tend to align with the Democrats. There's also the subject of the thread at hand, which regardless of its accuracy is not likely to endear him to non-whites, evangelical or otherwise.

So let me see if I get this right. The "authority" for aligning behind Trump is that he is a Republican and so are white evangelicals?

This strongly suggests to me that party trumps (pun intended) morality...

[Sparko]

Just because he's not racist on camera doesn't mean he's not racist. It just means he's not retarded.

Argument from silence now?

And as Piggy says, Trump has never been one to watch his mouth on anything.

[One Bad Pig]

So let me see if I get this right. The "authority" for aligning behind Trump is that he is a Republican and so are white evangelicals?

This strongly suggests to me that party trumps (pun intended) morality...

This strongly suggests to ME that you're seeing what you want to see. Trump is at least getting some things done that they like. The alternative is supporting the opposing party which does NOTHING they like.

[carpedm9587]

This strongly suggests to ME that you're seeing what you want to see. Trump is at least getting some things done that they like. The alternative is supporting the opposing party which does NOTHING they like.

So, as I said, party and policy trumps morality...

You see, OBP, it's not just that they support what Trump is doing policy-wise, they are (mostly) refusing to call him on his wide range of immoral acts and character flaws. The message I'm seeing is, "pretty much everything is forgiven, because you are enacting the policies we like."