Jump to content

The Impeachment of Trump?


Airbrush
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

Will you please elaborate on this bit specifically?

I don't think so iNow. I have expressed what I wanted to express very clearly and it is very unlikely that you do not understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, koti said:

I don't think so iNow. I have expressed what I wanted to express very clearly and it is very unlikely that you do not understand it.

I am utterly confused. Was the description I provided inaccurate? Is saying that white supremacists are white controversial? Or didn't you like the male part? Can we agree on the fallacy part?

Excuse me, but it is far from clear to me. And I am not seeing how discussions in general can be conducted when there are presumptions on motives without explanation on what they are based on.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

9 minutes ago, koti said:

I don't think so iNow. I have expressed what I wanted to express very clearly and it is very unlikely that you do not understand it.

Except, I've specifically told you I'm not following your point and that I want to, but need you to explain it another way. Instead, you're being unnecessarily abrasive and putting forth barbs  

You disagree with something I said. I don't understand why, asked you to clarify, and have a sincere desire to understand so I can 1) comprehend your view, and 2) correct my own stance if I'm mistaken. 

It would be a shame if you're unable or unwilling, or don't respect our partnership in this conversation enough to even bother trying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I am utterly confused. Was the description I provided inaccurate? Is saying that white supremacists are white controversial? Or didn't you like the male part? Can we agree on the fallacy part?

Excuse me, but it is far from clear to me. And I am not seeing how discussions in general can be conducted when there are presumptions on motives without explanation on what they are based on.

 

Nice CharonY. (sarcasm intended)

I'm reading through your other thread which you just opened in the matter of a few minutes while typing in this thread that you're dead tired and frankly...I give up.
I just don't see the point in repeatedly punching in my very clear and easy to understand assertions to somebody who surpasses me in language, science, intelligence but refuses to accept my perception of things. There's no further point for me to make besides what I already expressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

6 minutes ago, koti said:

Nice CharonY. (sarcasm intended)

I'm reading through your other thread which you just opened in the matter of a few minutes while typing in this thread that you're dead tired and frankly...I give up.
I just don't see the point in repeatedly punching in my very clear and easy to understand assertions to somebody who surpasses me in language, science, intelligence but refuses to accept my perception of things. There's no further point for me to make besides what I already expressed.

Wait, so you are saying that if someone says all nazis are white males, it sounds to you as if he was saying that all white males are therefore nazis?

Disregarding the wikipedia link, would you at least consider believing me if I tell you that in formal discourse this is a conclusion that is not valid (in the formal sense) even if it feels like it is? The reason I am asking is that for a discourse we have to at least agree on what sentences mean before we interpret them. Note that I have trouble understanding your perception of things if you do not describe them in a way that I understand, and the reverse, of course (which is why I initially linked the article because I thought that would clear things up objectively.

And yes, I type a lot when on this forum when I am dead tired as I use as a light exercise and, frankly, procrastinate so that I do not have to do my actual work.

Edited by CharonY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, koti said:

Your statement: "White males are at the heart of both the KKK and current extremism"
I think that it's trivially wrong to approach the problem of racism from the point of gender or race. If that doesn't help here's my previous statement:
"Subscribing to that rhetoric is like saying that all rapists are males therefore all males are rapists"
You can relax now as I'm sure we both agree on this.

 

 

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

Except, I've specifically told you I'm not following your point and that I want to, but need you to explain it another way. Instead, you're being unnecessarily abrasive and putting forth barbs  

You disagree with something I said. I don't understand why, asked you to clarify, and have a sincere desire to understand so I can 1) comprehend your view, and 2) correct my own stance if I'm mistaken. 

It would be a shame if you're unable or unwilling, or don't respect our partnership in this conversation enough to even bother trying. 

Please don't try to make me feel guilty by implying that I don't respect our partnership in this conversation - it's not going to work. I sincerely expressed what my views are, they are explained above in this post in a way which is very easy to understand. I too am tired...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, do you think I'm saying all white males are racist?

Do you take issue with my use of the term males and failure to explicitly call out female white supremacists?

Are you just being a dick?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think, and I am only guessing, is that objects to the whole concept of blaming gender or race in principle. The examples he created were independent of that statement to highlight obviously bad arguments, I presume. 

But again, I am only guessing at this point. Specifically to racial supremacy it is probably difficult to separate, well, at least race from the matter, as it is the core element of the movement. 

BTW, one of the things that I am procrastinating from is reading a student's lab report because I just can't figure out what he actually did and why. Serves me right, I suppose.

Edited by CharonY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

 

Wait, so you are saying that if someone says all nazis are white males, it sounds to you as if he was saying that all white males are therefore nazis?

Disregarding the wikipedia link, would you at least consider believing me if I tell you that in formal discourse this is a conclusion that is not valid (in the formal sense) even if it feels like it is? The reason I am asking is that for a discourse we have to at least agree on what sentences mean before we interpret them. Note that I have trouble understanding your perception of things if you do not describe them in a way that I understand, and the reverse, of course (which is why I initially linked the article because I thought that would clear things up objectively.

And yes, I type a lot when on this forum when I am dead tired as I use as a light exercise and, frankly, procrastinate so that I do not have to do my actual work.

What I'm saying in this thread (why I joined this thread) is that incorporating the concept of "white male privilage" is wrong in the context of the Charlotte issue. I do have a grasp of what sentences mean and I am aware of the fallacy which you are gently trying to explain to me, but thanks Charon.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

So, do you think I'm saying all white males are racist?

Do you take issue with my use of the term males and failure to explicitly call out female white supremacists?

Are you just being a dick?

Thats it iNow. I'm a white male, privileged dick. Good evening Sir.

Edited by koti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to be seeing people who are in fundamental agreement, arguing with each other in a hostile manner. Let's see if I can make matters worse, er, better.

There is a statement " White males are at the heart of both the KKK and current extremism". This appears to be a very simple, direct, straightforward statement, but as with many such seemingly simple statements it is likely a little more complex. There is the simple text and then there is the sub-text. The sub-text can be more difficult to discern and may be read differently by different people.

How did iNow intend it? In expanded form I think it was something like this. (I'd like iNow to correct me if I have it wrong.)

If we look at the membership of the KKK and the people engaged in the current extremism we find that they are overwhelmingly white and generally male. Females are present in a small minority, or have limited to zero impact upon policy and activity. Non-whites are pretty well excluded. It should go without saying that the white males involved in this are a subset of all white males and probably represent a (very) small percentage of the total.

From koti's point of view. The statement, as written, is misleading, even dangerous, on principle. Koti believes that assigning explanations/blame to issues based upon gender or ethnicity represents a convenient oversimplification that exacerbates rather than alleviates the problem. Therefore, to identify white males at being at the heart of this extremism is to obscure the underlying causes rather than to illuminate them. (koti, do I have that correct?)

I suspect koti would have been (more) comfortable with the statement, if an implicit caveat had been made explicit. Namely, "A subset of white males is at the heart of both the KKK and current extremism". iNow may feel that this is unecessary, but I hope he does not have an objection to the modification. This now refocuses our attention on what it is about this subset of humanity that is leading to extremist views and behaviour. I hope that would satisfy koti's objections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, koti said:

I'm sorry iNow but could you explain where your underlined rhetoric is coming from? I mean who would you expect to be at the heart of the KKK - black females? Plus your statement that "White males are at the heart of current extremism" is false from the global, political and religious point of view of whats going on with extremism right now globally. When looking at it just from the point of view of the US this statement seems at least weird as well.

I'm curious, which groups are more likely to get hired in the US? I'll tell you this...While looking for a job recently, I applied to probably a couple of thousand job offers in various countries including a 100 or maybe 150 jobs in the US in the last few months. Every single job offer that I applied for in the US was asking for my ethnicity, religion and gender as opposed to other countries where I never got asked about my ethnicity, gender or religion. Kinda makes you think doesn't it. 

129 million people vote in the 2016 U.S. election. Seventy percent of voters were white, 90.3 million voters. Trump won 58% of those white voters, 52.4 million votes. Total received a total of 63 million votes. That means 84% of Trumps support came from white voters and other the 39 million minority voters in 2016 only about a quater supported him. Trump won 63% of all white male voters to 53% of white females and males accounted to 52% of all votes to just 48% for women. White Males are the heart and soul of Trump's base.

This thread is about Trump and as it zigzag to other things when Trump is creating national firestorms it is worth remembering who his base and supporters overwhelmingly are, white males. With that context in mind the Nazis we saw carrying torches, their leaders like David Duke who were out there saying Trump supports them, and the driver of the car who killing a counter protester are white males. That isn't to say ALL white males are Trump supporters or that ALL whites people are racist. The counter protesters were majority white as well. In context to Trump's supporters and in context to Nazis and KKK groups which openly supprt Trump we are talking about groups who are predominantly white males. Not all whites are racist but nearly all of Trumps supporters are white. Not all whites are racist but all Nazis are white. Not all of Trump's supporters are racist but a shocking number of them are.

 

13 hours ago, koti said:

I'm curious, which groups are more likely to get hired in the US? I'll tell you this...While looking for a job recently, I applied to probably a couple of thousand job offers in various countries including a 100 or maybe 150 jobs in the US in the last few months. Every single job offer that I applied for in the US was asking for my ethnicity, religion and gender as opposed to other countries where I never got asked about my ethnicity, gender or religion. Kinda makes you think doesn't it. 

From the National Bureau of Economic Research:

"In response to help-wanted ads in Chicago and Boston newspapers, they sent resumes with either African-American- or white-sounding names and then measured the number of callbacks each resume received for interviews."

"The results indicate large racial differences in callback rates to a phone line with a voice mailbox attached and a message recorded by someone of the appropriate race and gender. Job applicants with white names needed to send about 10 resumes to get one callback; those with African-American names needed to send around 15 resumes to get one callback. "

" Race, the authors add, also affects the reward to having a better resume. Whites with higher quality resumes received 30 percent more callbacks than whites with lower quality resumes. But the positive impact of a better resume for those with Africa-American names was much smaller."

http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

 

" we sent emails to more than 6,500 randomly selected professors from 259 American universities. Each email was from a (fictional) prospective out-of-town student whom the professor did not know, expressing interest in the professor’s Ph.D. program and seeking guidance. These emails were identical and written in impeccable English, varying only in the name of the student sender. The messages came from students with names like Meredith Roberts, Lamar Washington, Juanita Martinez, Raj Singh and Chang Huang, names that earlier research participants consistently perceived as belonging to either a white, black, Hispanic, Indian or Chinese student."

"We computed the average response rates for each category of student (e.g., white male, Hispanic female), dividing the number of responses from the professors by the number of emails sent from students in a given race or gender category. Our analyses, which we reported recently in a second paper, revealed that the response rates did indeed depend on students’ race and gender identity. Professors were more responsive to white male students than to female, black, Hispanic, Indian or Chinese students in almost every discipline and across all types of universities."

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/11/opinion/sunday/professors-are-prejudiced-too.html?mcubz=1

 

Your personal experience isn't supported by search. The above experiments have been performed numerous times throughout the years and the result are consistant. The 2 studies I linked above show not only an advantage in employment but an advantage in education which is a critical part of getting quality employment. Then there is the fact that amongst those employeed over the age of 25 White males unemployment is just 3% compared to 6% for African Americans overall, 4.5% for Hispanics overall, and 4% for white females. So despite your experience looking for a job white males statistically are doing better than other groups broken down by race or gender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes for some nice Venn diagrams, Area54.

But when people start throwing concepts like 'white privilege' around, which applies to the set of all white males, they're again painting with a broad brush.

And just like I predicted on pg 20 ( whatever happened to post numbers ? ), a lot of Republicans are withdrawing their support from D Trump .
We may finally get an impeachment, or a resignation.
( just to get back on topic )

Edited by MigL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way this thread is going, in a few years time I wouldn't be surprised to see white males in the US opting for a sex change just to get by in the wonderful, "prejudice free" world you're painting here :P

MigL, I haven't been following this thread from the start or the whole presidency in detail. The republican withdrawal of support for Trump sounds encouraging, maybe there will be a chance to impeach him. I don't think he's capable of resigning though, unless put against the wall he will kling on to the presidency.

 

Edited by koti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, iNow said:

Still no clarification of your issue with my comments, then?

I haven't seen a rule on this forum stating that something needs to be clarified repeatedly over and over so, no... no repeated clarification will be provided.
I don't have an issue neither with your comments nor with you iNow, in fact I enjoy reading what you have to say for the past year or so that I'm here. We all know where everybody is with their views in this thread so lets just leave it there. If you feel like you still need clarification just read my previous post again.

Edited by koti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, StringJunky said:

They are symbols of historic racism and I think they should remain as tangible reminders of those dark days in US history.

They are also symbols of current racism, and I think the targets of such racism will be well aware of it even without the statues. I doubt they need reminders.

And what about the revisionist history that goes along with these symbols? The plaques and markers tell a peculiar version of the history of the south. It glorifies the agents of the racism.

Here's a little history lesson

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, koti said:

We all know where everybody is with their views in this thread so lets just leave it there.

Except, this isn't true, and I'm not the only one who's said so. We DON'T know where you are with your views. 

While you personally understand what you're saying and are clear on your own message, your position is unclear to some of us who are reading them and you've been asked (I think about 8 or 9 times now already) to clarify.

Why not just do that and move the conversation forward instead of continuing on with this unprovoked disrespect and obstinance? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@koti and iNow. Thank you for communicating, by your inaction, that my post attempting to explain and resolve  the difference of reading of a simple sentence was a complete waste of time. I'll leave you to stew in your own juices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Except, this isn't true, and I'm not the only one who's said so. We DON'T know where you are with your views. 

While you personally understand what you're saying and are clear on your own message, your position is unclear to some of us who are reading them and you've been asked (I think about 8 or 9 times now already) to clarify.

Why not just do that and move the conversation forward instead of continuing on with this unprovoked disrespect and obstinance? 

I repeatedly did clarify my views, Area54 gets it, MigL gets it, so I don't see a point in feeding this thread tangent further.
As for your accusation of me being disrespectful, all I see is you calling me a "dick" and I calling you "Sir" so we probably have different ideas of what disrespect is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Area54 said:

@koti and iNow. Thank you for communicating, by your inaction, that my post attempting to explain and resolve  the difference of reading of a simple sentence was a complete waste of time. I'll leave you to stew in your own juices.

I read your post carefully Area54. Thank you for writing it, it did not go to waste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, koti said:

I read your post carefully Area54. Thank you for writing it, it did not go to waste.

Thank you. Would you have the courtesy of telling me whether or not my understanding of your point was accurate or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.