SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Scott Alexander gives a great breakdown of Trump and how the portrayal of him as being "openly white supremacist" is probably (likely) wrong.
I stick to my thesis from October 2015. There is no evidence that Donald Trump is more racist than any past Republican candidate (or any other 70 year old white guy, for that matter). All this stuff about how he's "the candidate of the KKK" and "the vanguard of a new white supremacist movement" is made up. It's a catastrophic distraction from the dozens of other undeniable problems with Trump that could have convinced voters to abandon him. That it came to dominate the election cycle should be considered a horrifying indictment of our political discourse, in the same way that it would be a horrifying indictment of our political discourse if the entire Republican campaign had been based around the theory that Hillary Clinton was a secret Satanist. Yes, calling Romney a racist was crying wolf. But you are still crying wolf.
I avoided pushing this point any more since last October because I didn't want to look like I was supporting Trump, or accidentally convince anyone else to support Trump. But since we're past the point where that matters any more, I want to present my case.
He further states: "I realize that all of this is going to make me sound like a crazy person and put me completely at odds with every respectable thinker in the media, but luckily, being a crazy person at odds with every respectable thinker in the media has been a pretty good ticket to predictive accuracy lately, so whatever."
So do his claims hold up under scrutiny, is he manipulating the figures, or is he just a 'crazy person' ?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:27PM
Also, the article does not mention the people that Trump is appointing, like Stephen Bannon and the fact that he and his father had to settle racism charges relating to their property business.
Just because not everything he says is racist, does not make him not racist.
The article has stupid things like this:
He appointed one of the alt-right's organizers to his cabinet. He ignores that Breitbart news is aimed at the alt-right.
This article is a poorly constructed attempt at a whitewash, using the simplistic idea that you can just ignore any facts that are contrary to the author's views.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:37PM
had to settle racism charges relating to their property business.
I take it you have never owned/rented property. There are a lot of crazy people out there. They will say *anything* to fuck over a property owner. My father is currently fighting sexual harassment charges. Want to know what he was trying to do? Taking his client to lunch and collect rent. He does that for all of his clients. He has done that since the 60s. She wanted to maneuver it so he could not kick her out or raise the rent on her. My dad screwed up and did not research her. This is the 3rd landlord she has done this to. Many times settling is cheaper and easier if they only just GTFO of the building and out of your life. Do not put too much stock in 'racism' charges and someone who is being thrown out. If you dig a bit deeper you would probably find many missed rent payments and lots of yelling in phone calls as they dodged the rent. Then to drag it on even longer they decided to file racism charges.
Just because not everything he says is racist, does not make him not racist.
Yet you go on to conclude he is. You are suffering from cognitive dissonance. You are trying to 'whitewash' the facts so they continue to fit the narrative you believe to be true. Of the two candidates only one had a heavy hand in punishing blacks and 'superpreditors'. The 3 strikes law that Hillary Clinton and her husband promoted and helped get passed did more to damage black and hispanic communities. One purposefully joined a whites only golf club. One purposefully changed their club to be mixed. I also believe both of the candidates were equally racist.
He appointed one of the alt-right's organizers to his cabinet
Yeah and Obama basically appointed the list of people citibank wanted. After spending a year saying we need change away from that. What is your point? Most first year cabinet people will be gone by this time next year. Your only qualms against the guy is he is 'alt-right'. That is not a good argument against him.
This article is a poorly constructed attempt at a whitewash
Interesting conclusion. Perhaps if you re-read it with a bit of an open mind instead of 'I am going to ignore all the points' you would realize you have been lied to. These are lies you want to believe. Not lies that are true or false. That is how our media works now. They tell you half truths that you want to hear. News and politics is a persuasion game. Persuasion is all about making the other guy look bad. Don't think persuasion is effective? Then you must only buy generic items and have no idea what the difference between coke and pepsi is. You can not hum an old theme song to a tv show or quote a famous line from a movie. Persuasion is so ingrained into our society we do not even really see it anymore.
I will now make a prediction. You and others who have read this, that disagree, are mad at me. What you are feeling is natural. It is not that I am wrong and you are right or the other way around. You have been confronted with a world view that does not match your own. People do not like the idea that they are wrong. It makes them mad. Set aside your anger and take into consideration that there are different views on what you perceive as facts. I personally turned off the news in 2000. The news I was listening to was even telling me what I wanted to hear! This year has been one giant confirmation bias for me in the world view of the news does not have news. It has opinion disguised as news. I have not heard anything that will change my opinion on these talking heads. From what I have been seeing these news orgs are hemorrhaging money. One major org I heard of was bleeding 200million a year on an income of 300 with a spend of 500. Yet political organizations are propping them up. Why would they do that? Because propaganda in the form of news is effective.