I am not in the business of jeremiads, being an optimistic sort, but now and then a post here triggers an articulate and persuasive allegation of existential ethics rot. Such is the latest Comment of the Day, courtesy of reader slickwilly, his first. It was prompted by another commenter’s rueful observations on slickwilly’s earlier musings (sparked by the ESPN reporter whose use of the term “guerilla” was mistakenly attacked as a racial slur, losing him his job) on the public school system, in which he wrote in part,
I pity the teachers (and I live with one) who are afraid to offend a parent by reporting the “perfect little angel’s” latest misdeed, upon pain of possible job and pension loss. (I know of a school district that does not allow a student to flunk… writing a name on an assignment guarantees a passing grade. Butts in seats are how districts are paid, here) I agree with the ‘confronted and taught’ idea in principle, but how do you put that into practice, when doing so can destroy your ability to put food on the table for your family?
To which Zoltar Speaks! replied:
“Have we become a society of wimps unwilling to stand up for our convictions? At some point responsible adults must unite and take a stand regardless of the possibility of negative consequences. Even ignorant people know that there is power in numbers; so choose your battle, gain numerical support, focus on right and wrong, be on the side of right, and stand up for your convictions.”
Here is slickwilly’s Comment of the Day in response, on the post, The Destruction Of Doug Adler : Guerillas, Gorillas, ESPN And The First Niggardly Principle:
“Have we become a society of wimps unwilling to stand up for our convictions?”
Short answer: yes.
In many cases, there are no convictions to stand up for.
We are seeing the Republic die of apathy. There was some awakening when Trump was elected, but the majority of ‘normal’ folks I interact with each day (work and socially) just cannot be bothered to understand the issues, much less get engaged enough to have an opinion at all. If they DO have an opinion, it was usually delivered to them via meme or the MSM, and they cannot defend it.
Americans as a society have had things good for too many generations now for people to believe in an existential threat unless and until it directly impacts their lives. We live atop a thin veneer of civil behavior and mistakenly believe this crust is miles deep and the natural order of things.
Most people have less than two weeks of food in their houses, despite FEMA and others’ warnings to be prepared in case of food chain disruption. Grocery stores have less than two days of normal sales volume on the shelves, and little in the back storeroom many no longer have. Witness the empty shelves for the over-hyped east coast blizzard not long ago. Panic buying due to lack of foresight. (Has bad weather never visited these places before? Have Hurricanes never threatened the Gulf Coast before, that people empty store at the last minute? Has the Mississippi never flooded before?)
Starving people care little about civility, as Katrina and other emergencies have demonstrated.
This bleeds through to every aspect of society. This is how we have the backward views on grades and how we value public education. Priorities are disconnected from reality to the point ‘lies are truth, and truth is regarded as a lie.’ I read that last one somewhere…
Zoltar, the rot is prevalent, even here in the middle of Texas.
It must be Trump’s fault.
Ethics Alarms 
Congratulations slickwilly, it’s thought provoking.
I love your closing sentence.
Thank you, Jack, for the COTD. And thanks, Zoltar “who dares not speak his name” LOL
Sorry for the Laugh Out Loud thing. This must have gone to my head!
Jack, you can edit that post and delete this one if you wish.
I don’t know dude; you have two acronyms in there COTD & LOL! You’re really pushing the envelope of acceptable behavior. 😉
Slickwilly and Zman, the rot really is horrifying. I was depressed most of Monday afternoon after an incident at the end of my piano lesson.
My teacher and I were discussing Ricard Strauss and his being bushwhacked and smeared by Thomas Mann’s son Klaus at his, Strauss’s, home in Garmisch-Partenkirchen in the last days of World War Two. Mann, fil, accused Strauss of being a NAZI. My teacher said, effectively, “I’m not sure artists had much of a choice in Germany during the war and I’m not sure any of that has anything to do with artistic expression.” Which is an opinion I’ve heard before from people in the classical music world. “Whether Wagner was an anti-Semite or not, he was a supremely important composer,” etc. But then, completely without prodding and apropos of absolutely nothing we’d been talking about, my teacher observed, fairly vehemently for her (she’s very understated and restrained, almost bird-like), “Of course, now, we have a NAZI president!”
Unbelievable. This from a fifty plus year-old professional with undergraduate and graduate degrees. A spouse, a teacher of children (and adults) and a mother of an adult child. Speaking to a student whose political leanings she has no idea of. Calling a U.S. President a NAZI. Why? Just BECAUSE, evidently.
Has Trump ordered the rounding up of any religious group so they can be murdered in industrial facilities he’s had his administration design and build? Has he bombed and invaded and occupied Mexico and Canada and begun systematically murdering people from there? Has he murdered his political opponents? Has he declared a super race? Not that I’ve seen.
Trump? A NAZI? Do these people know what the NAZIs did? Erdogan gets scolded by the Germans for calling Merkel or the Dutch NAZIs but it’s perfectly acceptable for anyone to blithely toss off the comment about the current President of the United States as if it’s self-evident truth that anyone would see?
Unlike Jack, I just keep my mouth shut. But boy, is it ever depressing. For some reason, this little incident really shocked me. Maybe because when it happens in person, the stupidity and ugliness is more evident. But it’s rot, plain and simple. People need to get back to thinking for themselves and think about what they’re saying.
Careful! CNN may be reading this.
I know a few people like this on FB. They are so sure they’re right, they’re so right that they’re beyond discussion. Perhaps they’ve begun to realize that they’ve gone overboard, because now I see articles about not jettisoning the Trump voters that you know. The articles are so condescending though, that it’s easy to see that they still think they’re smarter than the average Republican, and occupy the higher moral ground. Even the extended olive branches speak of converting Trump voters to the liberal side, with phrasing like ” So if you’re going to have any chance at convincing them, it’s important that you operate from their level of moral reasoning” . They talk of Trump voters having been duped by flashy rhetoric, being misled. It’s not true reconciliation they speak of, but conversion. It’s amazing to me that they can’t see how condescending these articles are, all ” pity the poor Trump voter, only we can bring them into the light”. There was only one true choice, and Trump voters didn’t make it. Very nearly religious zeal…when have you ever known someone passing out tracts to take ‘no’ for an answer, or hesitate to buttonhole you for a talk about how their way is the only true path?
Liberal secularism has replaced religion, C. And it’s acting as if it is a religion. And here all the Christians were worried Christianity would be replaced/obliterated by Communism.
I think my piano teacher assumed she was speaking to another of the faithful. And maybe they just think “NAZI” is just a shorthand term for “fascist,” which is also ridiculous. Or shorthand for someone who thinks laws should be enforced as they are written until they’re amended by the legislature. But still, NAZI is such a horrific and inapt term.
The assumption that anyone who they know who’s a pleasant person voted for Hillary speaks of the extreme demonization of Trump voters. You can’t be a decent person and have actually voted for Trump! Impossible!
Actually, I held my nose and voted for HRC. I thought Trump was just too far outside the mainstream. But I’m delighted the Dems were neutered.
Given Trump’s temperament alone, I don’t see how a decent person could have voted for him.
1. Given Trump’s temperament alone, I don’t see how a decent person could have voted for him.
2. Given the obvious tendency of the Democratic Party to embrace totalitarian concepts and methods, I don’t see how a decent person could have voted for his opponent.
3. Given the object failure of the outgoing administration, I don’t see how a decent person could have voted to continue those policies.
4. Given the demonstrated lack of competence and honesty of his opponent, I don’t see how a decent person could have voted for her.
5. Given the crucial importance of the election and the dire risks facing the nation, I don’t see how a decent person could have refused to vote for one candidate or the other.
All true. Unfortunately, voters had to pick one of the five.
valkygrrl wrote, “Given Trump’s temperament alone, I don’t see how a decent person could have voted for him.”
…and yet millions of decent people did vote for him.
“Given Clinton’s history of illegal activities, unethical activities, and callous disregard for subordinates while serving as the Secretary of State, I don’t see how a decent person could have voted for her.”
…and yet millions of decent people did vote for her.
It’s essentially The Julie Principle; accepting that the negatives are there and you cannot change that but choose to “support” for reasons outside the negatives.
Didn’t take you long to use that concept! 🙂
The system is so far gone we cannot nominate a really decent candidate (The Dems could not even nominate a radical one due to corruption in the process!)
Our two party system has been taken over by an entitled class, the Establishment, on both sides of the aisle:
They make rules for ‘the little people’ but exempt themselves and their cronies (Obamacare exempts, more or less, Congress, many Unions, many Big Businesses, and so on; crime is prosecuted or not depending on who you are, etc…);
They get to pick favorites in the market place by changing rules, then profit by buying into the picked choice before it becomes public knowledge (how else do you leave public office worth 21 million, when you came in with little or nothing and made less than a half million each year?);
They can use the color of law and the government to personally profit (Harry Reid in Nevada had some really questionable deals, LBJ in Texas was famous for local opponents running afoul of legal issues, etc.)
They promise changes in office that they forget once in Washington (RINOs who gained the House, then the Senate, then POTUS and still won’t abolish Obamacare, but leave much of it intact, I suspect because it represents power for the immune Establishment);
And so on, add your favorite scandal here…
Citation needed.
valkygrrl wrote, “Citation needed.”
valkygrrl,
The implications of that request are all partisan bull shit! You should be ashamed of yourself for thinking the thought; taking the time to write it show a completely different level of partisan disgust for those you disagree with.
Grow the fuck up.
Oh no! valkygrrl simply is following the party line that Trump was backed by a basket of ‘deplorables.’
I find it signature significant that she did not ask for for a citation that millions of decent people voted for Hillary, that being both an article of faith and self evident from her twisted worldview.
I read what she wrote in the spirit of her often typical irony.
I’ve actually warmed quite a bit to Hilary and the Foundation. I made a substantial donation just the other day. God Bless their work. It was after I saw the interview Hilary gave with Lena Dunham, a hero of mine. These people have just gotten a bad rap that’s all …
Alizia Tyler wrote, “I read what she wrote in the spirit of her often typical irony.”
In context with previous things that were written, I think you read it incorrectly.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/11/27/an-ethics-wow-maureen-dowds-strange-bold-honest-chicken-absolute-bullseye-new-york-times-column-about-the-election-and-its-aftermath/
valkygrrl, decent people do terrible things all the time. How do you define a decent person?
I think a vote for Trump was an indefensible choice, for many of the same reasons Jack documented before his Election Day change of heart. But I don’t think it’s enough to judge someone a terrible person.
Chris wrote, “I think a vote for Trump was an indefensible choice… But I don’t think it’s enough to judge someone a terrible person.”
Can’t the exact same thing be fairly stated about Clinton?
Not by me.
Chris wrote, “Not by me.”
The difference between you and me is you choose to say such ignorant partisan things. I choose not to say that someone’s vote is an “indefensible choice, regardless of who they voted for.
I think a vote for Trump was an indefensible choice, for many of the same reasons Jack documented before his Election Day change of heart.
Uh. Redirect that. Jack never changed his heart on this. He did recognize that a vote for Hillary was equally perilous and indefensible and chose not to vote.
That’s a change of heart, since his previous argument was that Hillary was, despite her many defects, clearly the superior choice.
Wiggle as much as you want.
Context implies the change of heart was regarding finding a vote for Trump indefensible.
And Jack did not have a change of heart regarding that.
No doubt you meant something else, but that’s just a matter of clear communication.
She’s still a superior choice. But her party, its radical Leftist supporters and the culture she carried with her is so unAmerican and destructive that it was unconscionable to vote for the package. You recall that I categorized Clinton supporters as CORRUPT. I was right, but I only realized how right late in the game.
Dammit, you’re right. I retract my statement.
Other Bill,
Don’t be depressed, ask reasonable questions.
Here is my suggestion, take it for what it’s worth and modify it to fit you. At the end of your next piano lesson say something like this to your teacher, make sure you ask the question at the end. Play ignorant and wanting to learn; in a way you are, because you really don’t know why she said that but you’d like to know.
At the end of my last lesson you said our President is a Nazi; I don’t like Trump very much but this has been bothering me because I don’t understand why you said it.
I was taught in school what a Nazi was and taught about the terrible things they did to millions of other people and I don’t see a connection between our President and the Nazi’s.
Did my teachers all lie to me about what Nazi’s are and what Nazi’s did?
If the teacher answers “yes” then she’s got lots of explaining to do, I’d end the conversation there, thank her and head for the door.
If the teacher answers “no”; then ask this brief follow up question:
“If my teachers didn’t lie about what Nazi are, then I just don’t understand how can Trump be a Nazi?”
Make your mind up that you want answers not confrontation, so don’t argue with her about any of it, accept her answer(s) for what they are regardless of what she says, thank her for explaining herself and call it a night. No matter how she answers, you’ll walk out with a better understanding of her. After this you may have to apply The Julie Principle if you want to continue taking lessons from her.
Have these intentionally simplified definitions firmly under your belt in case she asks:
Fascism: an authoritarian and nationalistic system of government and social organization.
Nazi: a member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.
Wrap your head around that a while.
Zman, you have much more energy than I have. All I want is someone to play four hands with. I’m too old to try to save people from themselves. But your suggestions are all absolutely valid and on point. Thanks.
Other Bill wrote, “I’m too old to try to save people from themselves.”
You’re not, you’re gaining an understanding for yourself. If a light bulb just happens to go on for her in the process, that could easily be considered unintended collateral “damage”. 😉
Re-read The Julie Principle. Works for me.
Maybe my silence when I hear people say things like that, rather than saying “Right On! Brother!” is something. Maybe it will be a tiny bit disquieting and lead to some reflection. Or not.
Incidentally, this sub discussion reinforces one of the post’s point: OB would have to change teachers in order to stand for his convictions, and the price is seen as too high. Just like teachers do not stand up to educational malpractice, because they have a family to feed and a career is necessary to that end.
I AM NOT criticizing OB, but drawing the connection to traditional conservatives (and normal, traditional value holding Americans), whose natural inclination is to allow others to ‘go to hell in your own hand-basket’ so to speak, to be civil and respect other’s opinions even when they are irrational and unethical. I was taught ‘if you cannot say something nice, so nothing.’ The only exception was when your rights, liberties and so on were endangered by what was said. Confrontation comes with cost, ethically, psychologically, and sometimes physically or financially.
The left has great power to attack (get one fired, roasted in the media and social media, etc.) those they choose to, while the right has been too civil and ethical to use those tactics, and has been repressed from doing so by those tactics.
Good points well made, sw. The lack of civility is breathtaking on the outraged left is breathtaking. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.
Rats, there’s a bad closing italics tag at the end of this sentence, If my teachers didn’t lie about what Nazi are, then I just don’t understand how can Trump be a Nazi? All the italics was supposed to end there; Jack can you fix after a few more days of rest?
Fixed it, with my last breath…
And a worthwhile last breath effort it was. 🙂
Other Bill, in a sense, Christianity has been replaced by Communism…or, more accurately, Social Marxism. Instead of the “Workers vs. Owners” dialect, the merry band of Social Marxists at the Frankfurt School replaced the dialectic with a new one: “Oppressed vs. Oppressors.” It permeates pop culture, education, media.
Tippy Scales wrote, “Christianity has been replaced by Communism…or, more accurately, Social Marxism.”
I disagree that Christianity has been replaced with anything. The current trends may be moving away from organized “religion” in general but that’s a cycle that societies has been going through for thousands of years.
The larger question for this blog to tackle is:
What is ethics being “replaced” with?
When a society goes through years and years of flushing ethics and in a real way has been actively promoting unethical behaviors by “rewarding” it with popularity, what’s left behind to fill the void? Trump?
No, secular humanism dressed up as progressivism. High priest: Bernie Sanders.
Replaced with moral relativism, where your signaled virtue gives you dispensation to sin in other areas; there is no established right or wrong other than the group consensus of the moment; and (an old concept) where your neighbors might attack you for not agreeing with that consensus.
Put this together with 50 years of slanted media, and it LOOKS like thisis the majority position.
Most people are not this way, and that gives me hope.
That’s every day all day here in Portland. In a single day my doctor, neighbor, friend, and a cashier casually blurted out their distaste for Trump. I guess they assumed I’d feel the same way or don’t care about about being annoying. I like to joke that Portland is America’s premier socialist sh*thole.
No wonder they think the election was “hacked.” Everybody they know voted for Hillary. How could Trump have won if no one voted for him? Maybe we’re seeing the emergence of “The Silenced Majority.” But of course, Hillary won the popular vote so that can’t be right.
“Do these people know what the NAZIs did?”
No. I don’t think they do. If in her mid 50s she would have been attending high school in the 70s. I graduated from HS in ’66 and even during my time there was no real in-depth teaching of history. She then probably had little if any history in college assuming her degrees are music related. I just asked my wife, who was almost 10 when the war ended, what she remembered about Nazis and the war and it was actually very little. I think there are now few people with any real knowledge of that period and those are people who read and study military and political history on their own and the very few heroes still living who actually fought it. People like your music teacher hear someone say Trump is Hitler or Trump is a Nazi and just accept it without questioning what it means because that’s what all their peers and FB friends are saying. They also suffer from a deficit in logic, reasoning Hitler/Nazi=Bad, Trump=Bad therefore Trump=Hitler/Nazi.
I agree with what Zoltar recommends at 9:42 pm. The gently applied Socratic method is the best approach to help someone actually start thinking critically.
I was going to express my doubts about a music performance degree’s worth in terms of encouraging critical thinking. I think music students are too busy spending eight hours a day practicing their instrument to engage in much intellectual activity. But for goodness sake, don’t these people watch movies? “Schindler’s List?” “Sophie’s Choice?” Everything by Steven Spielberg is must see stuff for liberals.
We didn’t get to WWII in high school history before the year ended. Don’t people educate themselves after they’re done with high school and college? Maybe not. Depressing.
By the way, Sparty could shed legitimate light on a music undergrad degree. Although I suspect she primarily used playing in the marching band and the concert orchestra to finance her degree. I doubt many people get into Michigan law school with a music performance undergrad, unless they double major in physics or electrical engineering or something.
John Billingsley wrote, “They also suffer from a deficit in logic, reasoning Hitler/Nazi=Bad, Trump=Bad therefore Trump=Hitler/Nazi.”
Interesting way of putting it.
Mathematically that’s…
A + B = C; X = C; therefore C = A & B.
Hey all you Liberal math wizards out there attempting to use the analytical side of your brain; start plugging real numbers into that and see if you can prove it wrong.
John,
That kind of thought process certainly doesn’t fit any sort of logical process of correlation I’ve ever been taught; however, when you think like a wide swath of Liberals/Progressives, all you need is a sliver of correlation to equal causation.
Oops, big typo!
A + B = C; X = C; therefore X = A & B.
Big brain fart on my part. 😉
I think what you are describing is best referred to as the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.
That is to say use of this invalid proposition:
If p then q
q
Therefore p.
In this specific scenario:
If Hitler, then bad
Trump is bad
Therefore Trump is Hitler
Thank you. I knew something didn’t look right.
As someone who knows a lot of people who call Trump a Nazi, and who has seen their justifications for it, I think it goes more like this:
1) Nazis targeted people based on their ethnicities and religious beliefs
2) Trump targets people based on their ethnicities and religious beliefs
3) Therefore, Trump is a Nazi.
Both 1 and 2 are true, but 3 doesn’t logically follow from them. In addition, “targeting” in Trump’s case so far means spreading lies and saying bigoted statements, while “targeting” in the Nazis’ case meant genocide. The best case scenario is that these people are using hyperbole or using the term “Nazi” way too loosely. I doubt most of them really believe Trump is planning genocide, nor are they uninformed that the Nazis did that.
Interestingly, Jack once wrote that Trump should be called a Nazi, and that the label was justified, so take that for what it’s worth.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2015/12/01/trumps-new-jersey-muslims-9-11-celebration-lie-justifies-a-nazi-label/
Chris wrote, ”
1) Nazis targeted people based on their ethnicities and religious beliefs
2) Trump targets people based on their ethnicities and religious beliefs
3) Therefore, Trump is a Nazi.
Both 1 and 2 are true, but 3 doesn’t logically follow from them.”
Interesting…
I don’t think you can actually prove that Trump has targeted people based on religious beliefs without piles of innuendo presented as fact; therefore #2 is false.
How about this…
1) Communists intentionally divided the population into oppressed groups and used propaganda and the media to manipulate the thoughts of the population and members actively suppressed free speech.
2) Democrats intentionally divided the population into oppressed groups and used propaganda and the media to manipulate the thoughts of the population and members actively suppressed free speech.
3) Therefore, the Democratic Party is acting like Communists.
Both 1 and 2 are true, but is it true or not true that 3 logically flows from them?
Rats – bad italics ending tag again. I wish there was a better way.
You could say 3 logically follows from 1 and 2; in that one regard, Democrats are acting like Communists.
But the number 3 we were discussing didn’t just say Trump was acting like a Nazi, it says he *was* a Nazi, and that’s what I take issue with.
I don’t think you can actually prove that Trump has targeted people based on religious beliefs without piles of innuendo presented as fact; therefore #2 is false.
It’s a fact that Trump said he was considering a Muslim ban, and later put that as a specific policy proposal on his website. It’s a fact that he spread what Jack referred to as a “Nazi lie” that thousands of NJ Muslims celebrated 9/11. It’s a fact that he attacked the mother of a Muslim soldier with bigoted stereotypes about Muslim women.
I’d say all of those are examples of targeting people based on religious beliefs.
These don’t rise to the level of Nazis, of course. Trump is a bigot, but he isn’t a Nazi.
The jury is still out on Gorka, though.
Yes, it’s still the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent when worded that way as well.
“Interestingly, Jack once wrote that Trump should be called a Nazi, and that the label was justified, so take that for what it’s worth.”
If I understand Jack’s ethics and that article, then I don’t think he meant for this label to last for any enduring time or for any holistic evaluation of Trump.
Jack’s words: “To hell with Hanlon: this is Nazi Propaganda 101, and deserves to be identified as such directly to Donald Trump’s face.”
Clearly indicates that the label is meant to jolt attention onto the particular tactic employed by Trump.
Jack’s words: “It’s Nazi stuff, and he should be called on it. One of his opponents should do it. Call him a Nazi, right on TV, and attribute the tactic to Ronald Reagan. He called the USSR evil, it was, and the truth hurt.”
Again, clearly indicates the label is to jolt Trump’s attention towards the specific tactic. Not to evaluate Trump as a whole. Clearly this implies a limit on the use of the term as it relates to Trump.
I know you think you found a bird’s nest on the ground with Jack’s article here, because you’ve pulled out this article faster than a wild west quick draw a couple times already in efforts to assuage your own angst over improper uses of the label regarding Trump.
But I really think you need to go back and reassess…his article doesn’t quite do for you what you want it to. This is more of your partisan blinders showing through.
I’m not sure I’m following. Are you saying that even though you think it is unethical to call Trump a Nazi, it is ethical to call him in a Nazi in certain limited circumstances?
I think it’s unethical to immediately revert to that label every single time Trump does something like say, merely being alive and in the White House, which essentially is basic trigger for Left Wingers to call him a Nazi.
I think the Nazi label Jack supported was fairly clearly meant for that time, that place, and from that source to try to jolt Trump’s attention and direction back to a more defensible stance.
From the Left, at this point…the term has lost all meaning. So that source of the term is exhausted…but you all only have yourselves to blame for it.
And I think you are definitely errant in using Jack’s article to justify what it seems you are trying to justify. Perhaps you can clarify your intent better.
Does signature significance come into play here? If Trump can be called a Nazi for falsely claiming he saw thousands and thousands of Muslims cheering 9/11 in New Jersey, then the question can be asked whether a non-Nazi would ever do that.
Of course, I still think calling him a Nazi is, at best, hyperbole, and at worst hysteria or a deliberate attempt to mislead. But the term “bigot” is apt, and applies to his general, continuous behavior.
“Of course, I still think calling him a Nazi is, at best, hyperbole, and at worst hysteria or a deliberate attempt to mislead.”
Chris, I have to say that you very often come, in a somewhat roundabout way, to conclusions not that far from what those you purport to rather violently disagree with say, which I find kind of, I don’t know, nice?
That’s the best compliment you could pay me, OB.
Try “Idiot.”
Could you give a clear example of Trump being racist? I’m not white & I’ve never heard him say a single thing about hating people based on ethnicity or race. Thanks
This is an unpopular opinion here, but Trump’s multiple attacks on Mexicans–which started with his infamous “When Mexico sends its people” opening speech, and also included his insistence that a judge was biased against him because he was Mexican–were racist.
(Yes, on many of the previous censuses, “Mexican” was not defined as a race, but that is likely to change on the next census, and “Mexican” is the most common write-in race on the census. It is abundantly clear that many Americans think of “Mexican” as a race. It is also abundantly clear that Mexicans are not considered “white” by most Americans. And of course, “racism” is often applied to ethnic hatred.)
People with racist beliefs and attitudes rarely announce “I hate people based on ethnicity and race!” But I would think that a politician spending his entire campaign spreading fear and stereotypes of a specific ethnic minority would be easily recognized as racism by almost everyone in modern society. It’s not subtle.
It’s just a bad analysis, Chris. Not unpopular, just in defiance of language and logic. Mexico makes up the vast, vast majority of illegal immigrants, Chris, and the statement that Mexico isn’t sending it’s “best” illegally is obviously true. That murderers, racists and other criminals are among those “not best” is also a matter of record. The racist slur has always been a dishonest way to avoid dealing with the very valid issue Trump was raising, however inarticulately. The Mexican judge comment was just simpleminded and ignorant of judicial ethics. Trump has been accused of being biased against Mexicans, so he assumes a Mexican-American judge would/might be biased against him. He would presumably make the same argument if he had derided the New York Yankees and the judge was Derek Jeter’s cousin.
It’s an embarrassingly poor argument that Trump is racist, anti-mexican, xenophobic…all of it.
He is obviously xenophobic, and that is far more clear than his racism. His entire campaign was about spreading fear of immigrants–including the many legal immigrants that he just banned from our country. That you think this fear is justified does not make it any less xenophobic.
By definition a justifiable fear is not a phobia. That’s key for the accuracy of the smear.
Chris, you are hopeless on this issue.
He was promoting rational fear of immigrants who are dangerous due to radical Islamic motives, which the Obama Administration refused to concede, and opposition to illegal immigrants. Neither of which are xenophobic.
Magnifying rational fears to the point where they are no longer rational *is* a phobia, though. Falsely accusing thousands of Muslims in NJ of celebrating 9/11 wasn’t rational. Using bigoted stereotypes against Mrs. Khan wasn’t rational. The entire “When Mexico sends it’s people speech” was overblown and irrational. His attacks on Judge Curiel were not rational. His proposal for a “total shutdown” all Muslims from immigrating into the US wasn’t rational. Neither version of the travel ban is rational.
Every single one of these statements and actions was designed to spread fear of foreigners.
Having a healthy fear of car accidents is rational; refusing to get in a car isn’t, and is evidence of a phobia. We all understand this, right? Then why are we not all seeing how rational fears of terrorism or problems caused by immigration can turn into a phobia?
You’re over-conflating, and wildly. The attack on the judge wasn’t irrational, it was ignorant. That battle (does an A-A judge have a conflict ruling on civil rights case?) has been argued and decided, but it’s not irrational. I explained why the Mexico comments wasn’t irrational. It was inept. I agree with it in content. With the DNC speaker, he was just engaging in tit-for tat. He might just as well have accused him of having a big nose.
I think I’ll go with Zoltar and his comment. Trump was elected btw and although he may screw things up, people are sick and tired of elitist politicians. Remember that the American Revolution was won by only about 1/3 of the colonials supporting it (with some support from the French). Apathy I don’t see much of: Some very wrongheaded ideas yes.
Interestingly enough, there was a time when people paid directly for education. Well, I take that back, they paid directly to subject themselves to a torrent of information. Teachers were incentivized to teach the best they possibly could…not to some centrally planned program. Administration was incentivized to be lean and efficient…not a bloated self-licking ice cream cone. Students, despite their investment, could fail and waste all that money and time, thus were incentivized to actually learn. Those who didn’t care about learning at all didn’t pay in or attend (and thhus stayed out of the way of those who wanted to learn)…they knew AND accepted the market consequences as opposed to being compelled to attend tax-funded day cares for adolescents.
It’s interesting how things are ruined once they become socialist constructs.
As predicted by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt