Is Donald Trump a racist?

Did I though? I only said rap culture celebrates gang culture. Is that wrong? Is that negative? Maybe celebrates is the wrong word, interwoven is better? Gang culture is completely part of rap culture. Doesn't mean people practice gang culture any more than people that enjoy metal practice Viking culture.

Did I say it exclusively represents blacks? White people love rap. Even geeks in this day listen to rap. And there are black groups as well as other monitories in geek culture. Its not exclusively white.

I never suggested negativity with rap, I said it would be assumed. I never suggested race was a prerequisite to culture, I said it was assumed. The entire point is how someone could read into a couple of small points made about 2 different cultures.

Thanks for making those assumptions and proving my point, and the point that everyone is a little racist.

You assumed when I said rap culture celebrates gang culture. That I meant black gang culture. You assumed when I said geek culture you thought I meant white culture. YOU made those connections. The entire point of the analogy was to show, using something more obvious, how stupid people could be using their own prejudices to interpret what someone said.

You can extend that same analogy to more nuanced issues like the border crisis. Someone will assume I mean the "Mexican" problem... even though there is no equivalent "Canadian" problem. If someone were to do that, they'd be the ones making the distinction it must be a crisis because they are Mexican!

Is this guy for real? He's inadvertently laying out the most compelling argument I've seen in a long time to keep legislature like the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Affirmative Action, and the Fair Housing Act because people like him remain despite claims to the contrary.

That's discrimination.

Telling blacks there are no vacancies or to get out of your casino because you don't want black there is racism and/or discrimination, no matter how you try to justify it with statistics.

• 1973: The US Department of Justice — under the Nixon administration, out of all administrations — sued the Trump Management Corporation for violating the Fair Housing Act. Federal officials found evidence that Trump had refused to rent to black tenants and lied to black applicants about whether apartments were available, among other accusations. Trump said the federal government was trying to get him to rent to welfare recipients. In the aftermath, he signed an agreement in 1975 agreeing not to discriminate to renters of color without admitting to discriminating before.

• 1980s: Kip Brown, a former employee at Trump’s Castle, accused another one of Trump’s businesses of discrimination. “When Donald and Ivana came to the casino, the bosses would order all the black people off the floor,” Brown said. “It was the eighties, I was a teenager, but I remember it: They put us all in the back.”

I will continue to believe Trump at least was racist based off of his past actions. I don't care for what reasons (believes Blacks are bad for business), the actions were in fact racist and discriminatory.

The fact you are defending it instead of being like the other extreme right clowns here and just lying how Trump didn't actually do it is bewildering. You're going the distance.

In another thread he said right wing hate groups, terrorism, and hate crimes were on the rise because of the left's discrimination against Republicans. Lmao.

@waahahah:

You assumed when I said rap culture celebrates gang culture. That I meant black gang culture.

That is because rap culture is predominantly black.

You assumed when I said geek culture you thought I meant white culture.

That is because in your citing geek culture you specified Facebook, which is a product of a white entrepreneurship.

Are these incorrect assessments? They are assumptions that's true, but the important thing is they're only superficial benign ones until you went further to make negative and positive attribution, respectively. Once again, it was you who did that despite your attempt at revisionism. You would have a point if you had simply compared rap to geek culture and left it at that and then I immediately jumped to the conclusion that you were arguing the former was lesser because you were attributing it with gang culture and the latter was superior because I believed you were attributing success with geek culture (which is often stereotypically viewed as predominantly white). Then that would be on my shoulders, but that's not what happened. You presupposed that's what I already thought in my response after you made that post. It wasn't, and it isn't. I only took your lead after you made the correlation, after which you went on the offensive and claimed me a racist for following your line of reasoning.

So once again, take responsibility for your own words and don't blame them on others for a construing them very reasonably.

Discrimination happens every day for any reason. Its part of freedom of association. Discrimination isn't inherently immoral or unlawful. A distinction you don't seem to understand.

Racism is the belief that a race is inferior or has intrinsic qualities. It can be discriminatory. Discriminating based on statistics isn't necessarily racism though.

Your first point is wrong. Donald Trump wasn't necessarily the one making those decisions. There is little or no proof of that. Secondly different trump buildings (under Donald) treated people differently. The under cover applicants were referred to other buildings. Not saying his business wasn't culpable for discrimination, but its not really evidence of trump being specifically being racist.

There is evidence to suggest.. everyone was racist, managers would act under their own discretion… as well as tenants. Mrs Brown talked about how one man refused to take an elevator with her.

Second point is hearsay.

Also, trump himself isn't necessarily for segregation

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/so-you-think-you-know-donald-trump/

• He made an integrated golf club (most likely a business decision).
• Started a fund for a Mexican mother.
• Used his jet for a to fly a sick jewish boy for special care.
• Donald Trump sent $10,000 to hero (black) bus driver Darnell Barton
• Donald Trump gave the job of constructing Trump Tower to Barbara Res, making her the 1st woman to build a skyscraper.

There is far more evidence that trump was particularly liberal for his time. The racist sentiment of the 70s/80s has only faded even in New York. Your trying to tell me he's a racist because a bunch of housing discrimination in particular time and where drug crime and violence gripped black communities. Most likely they were good business decisions. Which again... having statistics slapped in your face telling you you'll lose money if you DON'T discriminate is entirely distinct from believing all black people are inferior and discriminating.

This is pure spin and conflicts with the definition of discrimination, and thus racism. Targeted and specific discrimination is discrimination, no matter "why" he is doing it.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

racism

nounrac·​ism | \ ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi- \

Definition of racism

1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race2a: a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principlesb: a political or social system founded on racism3: racial prejudice or discrimination Other Words from racism

If you're intentionally told to turn away Blacks into your apartment that is discrimination, regardless of the reason. That's just a fact.

The Justice Department sued Donald Trump, his father, Fred, and Trump Management in order to obtain a settlement in which Trump and his father would promise not to discriminate. The case eventually was settled two years later after Trump tried to countersue the Justice Department for $100 million for making false statements. Those allegations were dismissed by the court.

"Donald started his career, back in 1973, being sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination — because he would not rent apartments in one of his developments to African-Americans, and he made sure that the people who worked for him understood that was the policy,

Facts are facts.

Based on his actions, most likely yes. he's also an idiot and the two go hand and hand.

YOu know what is even more amazing. Is that Bill and Hillary clinton have done more to destroy african americans in this country than Donald Trump could ever do. With their mass incarceration policies that lead to a generation of colored people lacking fathers. But both political parties in this country have their heads shoved so far up their asses, that they have no self reflection to realize that these policies were harmful to the country. They're like sports teams fans. Dumb as ever, but loyal to their respective organization. Cue a certain GS poster in 3, 2, 1. . . .

Right. Your still missing the point. I wasn't arguing which was better. I wasn't comparing. They are two observations from different cultures.

They were overt enough to illustrate how an idiot could attempt to infer everything. I'm not "attributing" rap culture to gang. That's its origin. Its essentially people creating art about living the street life. But rap isn't gang culture. Its an art. It just came out of something terrible...

You made the accociation to race. So can you tell me what rap being predominently blacks is bad? Are you insinuating that rap represents all black culture? That its mostly exclusive to black culture? Or the behavior an intrinsic part of being black? I didn't bring up any such notions... you did. You inferred because you perceive rap as predominantly black, and predominantly bad...

Should someone go tell lil wayne he's not an artist becuase its rap? Sure its bad branding... its fairly unique to black culture. I've never red a book by the cartel about how they are going to sell their cocaine or seen a play by the mafia about how they bury their bodies, or kgb mimes quietly illustrating how they take people to prison. Either way rap is a product... that's entertained millions regardless of its origin.

I didn't say anything about discrimination against republicans.

And most of the "right wing" terrorism and hate crime aren't affiliated with any hard core fundamentalist groups like Islamic groups. Most of the time its a deranged person with deranged beliefs. You end up with individuals like this because they don't feel like they have agency in their life, and because people completely suppress or demonize their ideas with bigotry. That's predominantly on the left. So of course right wing violence and terrorism are going to increase... If that oppressive / fascist behavior was predominantly on the right you'd have left wing violence and terror attacks.

Todays moto is punch an alt right or Nazi? How many people are labeled as such? Any one that disagrees with the main narrative of the left. It's a far cry from hero's like Daryl Davis. He supported KKK clansman right to speak and hold views so much he drove them to clan rallies.

edit: second video https://youtu.be/fw0vS0qvYo0

You missed the first sentence of your defnintion

a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

Racial discrimination is often the result of racism.. But racism requires a particular belief about race... and that doesn't manifest in all cases of racial discrimination. If your calling someone a racist, your implying that person has a particular belief.

If your just using statistics that correlate race to other socioeconomic issues... than your not using race as the primary determinant of human traits... its just an indicator via correlation of other human traits that are undesirable or desirable.

I know its hard to grasp.. but have you have heard the term correlation doesn't mean causation? It does however factor into probabilities and generally if you can get a high correlation.. SCIENTIFICILY its a predictor. Even if your using it to predict transient characteristics in culture.

Numbered definitions in the dictionary are to be taken separately, not in combination. You either mean one definition or another, not all simultaneously. Think how many different meanings there are for the word FORCE.

That being said, definition #3 above perfectly fits the scenario.

no... because #3 is racial prejudice which when expanded is basically #1...

Dictionaries are often treated as the final arbiter in arguments over a word’s meaning, but they are not always well suited for settling disputes. The lexicographer’s role is to explain how words are (or have been) actually used, not how some may feel that they should be used, and they say nothing about the intrinsic nature of the thing named by a word, much less the significance it may have for individuals. When discussing concepts like racism, therefore, it is prudent to recognize that quoting from a dictionary is unlikely to either mollify or persuade the person with whom one is arguing.

Secondly your being pedantic and the dictionally literally states this. No one is suggesting that a racist is someone that might incidentally end up racially discriminating based on other factors, or all racial discrimination by any measure is racism (see affirmative action). Its pure bullshit to try to separate the implication that Racism carries.

The reason why you and zaryi are trying pave over this distinction is because its easier to throw the term racist out.. or you just don't know better because its already been paved over. But the term racist carries that implication even if your using it just to mean racial discrimination. In which it ends up being a slander. You can reach back in to statistics, like the average insurance costs where the average black person paid nearly 50% more than Asians/Whites... and call the company racist.

This is either intentional to slander ignoring nuance.. or ignorant because not understanding nuance.

I'm not missing any point, you are. I perceive rap as majority black, but that's a neutral perception. You attributed rap to largely associating it with gang culture ("rap culture celebrates gang culture"), which is negative. For me to take what holds basis in fact (rap is predominantly black) and then take something you stated in making an inference isn't idiocy, it's a natural conclusion dictated by logic, further reinforced by you immediately pulling it into contrast against incredible success by making note of a company built by a white man.

"Case in point. Rap culture vs Geek culture. These are going to be looked at differently regardless of race. Rap culture is celebrates gang culture while geek culture produces software engineers and shit like facebook".

Appears to me the above is a statement of personal conviction. That they are observations doesn't mean they can't be compared, which is what you'd be doing in arguing what is better, the point of your hypothetical. Are you honestly that naive to believe that using such phrasing wouldn't pull your motives into suspicion? I think you're wrong, I don't believe many would accuse you of racism off the bat if you discussed whether rap is better than geek culture, but many wouldn't hesitate to suspect you if you stated the bolded to them as an initial premise. You are the imbecile for your inability to use proper English, and then you throw a tantrum when people reach the natural conclusion, NOT BASED ON THEIR BELIEFS, BUT BASED ON NOTHING BUT YOUR STATEMENT. That's all I have to work with.

And rap isn't gang culture? I wouldn't argue all of it is, but you are aware that two very successful rappers lived it and paid for that with their lives (Tupac & Notorious BIG), yes? Explain to me how these people can create art about street life without living its culture? They aren't mutually exclusive concepts, and once again you're trying to draw distinctions all over the place to tip toe away from the responsibility of what you've stated.

You necessitate inference and assumption because you lack the language skills to express what you truly mean. I hate to be so harsh but that's what this boils down to. I wouldn't have trouble with that until you blame others for it.

You're completely ignoring the big old 'OR' conjoining two independent criteria (re: #3).

racial prejudice OR discrimination

Both criteria are NOT required to meet the definition (which is why the word AND is not used).

I agree the Clintons are garbage, but that doesn’t excuse anything Trump has said or done. He still has made indisputably racist comments and has a long history of racial discrimination dating back far before he ran for president.

I mean, if you primarily watch cnn or msnbc (aka fake news) then yes, Trump comes off as a racist by their ill-informed pundits. But if you watch Trump’s MAGA rallies, he’s a bright, entertaining, and positive guy - a real hero. Definitely not a racist by any stretch of the imagination.

@waahahah

About the idea of avoiding people with a certain skin color as a business owner to minimize risk, right? So I understand the thought you present here can be supported rationally in some way. Why take a heightened risk if you don't have to? You're not so much sorting on skin color but on statistical differences. The skin color just happens to be a useful denominator, or just happens to be the data you have access to. But I do think there is a practical problem and an ethical one. Because even if there is a statistical difference between two groups like 10%, the overwhelming majority of those two groups is still innocent. So a large group of innocent people is effectively punished/restricted for the wrongdoings of people who share some traits (not causality), who they have no responsibility or control over. (And with big data you can imagine we can now extrapolate that to all sorts of traits and habits. But since it is rudimentary (any group still includes many innocents), maybe it can never be used ethically.)

I think we'll have to pretend that this is a common approach in society to make the problem more apparent. So that's a mind game, not a realistic setting, where we pretend that it's common to avoid high risk groups as a business. And then you find that someone with an eating disorder will have to pay their insurance twice as much because they'll cost more. Right? The insurance companies would dig into your lifestyle and say: "You don't eat enough/eat too much, we raise the fees." "You've been born into a poor family which means a heightened risk of illnesses and we raise the fees." And that is rationally sound if we only look at the desire to minimize risk, but it creates self perpetuating problems. The groups that have a higher risk of committing certain crimes get treated poorly, which means they will be at an even higher risk of committing certain crimes. The people who are poor are rejected from facilities/stores/services, which means they can't pay for anything anymore. Etc. And even if we find an accurate way to single out the problematic people (we look at the individual's lifestyle like with how they eat) then ultimately things like insurance loses its function because we would all be forced to pay at least how much we cost. And our income would lose its function because of individual pricing.

It reminds me of this seemingly great rational idea: "We should not discriminate on skin color, unless it's practical/necessary." I think it's important to be very strict and careful with the exceptions to racism where we say: "Our segregation based on skin color is just a by-product here." Because it's very easy to interpret any form of discrimination as something practical in one way or another, so that is a pretty thin line to draw between something very innocent and something very dangerous/damaging. There can be quite innocent exceptions (a research team is looking into skin differences and therefore requires more volunteers with certain skin gradients, or a movie director wants an actor to look a certain way including skin color to imitate a certain character in their mind). But on the other hand a dictator using racism to divide the people would also use that line of thinking to justify their actions. They wouldn't think of what they are doing as racist or wrong, because it was in their mind a practical solution to their problems. Anyone who is innocent and part of the targeted group are just collateral damage in their eyes. So I think we need to be careful with just using that line of thinking because it's incomplete at best. It can seem very practical to discriminate a group of people who are statistically more inclined to problematic thinking/acting, and then negatively impact innocent people in the process. It needs to be ethically sound, and hurting innocents tends to be not so practical in the long term.

(I think this is a mistake common in the far-left/far-right/dictator circles, where their desire to reach their utopia (and their accompanying alarmist nature and paranoia and selection bias) makes it just a little harder for them to see the innocents who get hurt along the way and how that can derail the support for them and maybe even their cause. It's something that's becoming more common on the internet and campus as they polarize.)

That's true. Trump is openly racist at times. Which is a big shift from many politicans who are more tactful about their biases.

I base my assessment on trump's actions and words. I don't need anyone to tell me what those words/actions mean.

@LJS9502_basic: Examples?

Already posted them.

Citation?

@LJS9502_basic: So, no examples?

Read the thread.

#3: racial prejudice or discrimination

You're spinning.

Oh and while we are at more than obvious examples, https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2016/jun/08/donald-trumps-racial-comments-about-judge-trump-un/

I got you bro,

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/12/racism-and-donald-trump-a-common-thread-throughout-his-career-and-life

I can't believe we're now debating how dictionaries work to him.

He is wildly spinning every post and it's quite amazing to watch.

I'm not ignoring or spinning anything. The dictionary is literally stating not to use the specific definitions as proof its usage. Right under your 3rd definition. #3 only exists because people misuse the word...

Dictionaries are often treated as the final arbiter in arguments over a word’s meaning, but they are not always well suited for settling disputes. The lexicographer’s role is to explain how words are (or have been) actually used, not how some may feel that they should be used, and they say nothing about the intrinsic nature of the thing named by a word, much less the significance it may have for individuals. When discussing concepts like racism, therefore, it is prudent to recognize that quoting from a dictionary is unlikely to either mollify or persuade the person with whom one is arguing.

The fact remains that the usage and understanding isn't precise or wildly understood to only be "racial discrimination". You can't detach it from its original meaning. Even if you only mean "racial discrimination", that doesn't change what Racism actually means and inevitably implies when you use it.

People either use it the way your using it because they were taught wrong, or intentionally trying to slander someone with the implied meaning.

@KungfuKitten

Its not a denominator, its a useful indictor. If you have a characteristic that is correlates highly to another characteristic, its not suggesting that A is a prerequisite to B or B is an intrinsic quality of A.... its just suggesting that A is a fairly strong predictor of B.

I'm not suggesting that its OK to discriminate against skin color. What I'm suggesting that if you lived in a particular place, and a particular time... that all evidence shows that making housing available to a black community is highly risky, either because the community is statistically higher crime, worse off as well as public perception being racist and self segregating... and choosing to discriminate against blacks, is distinctly different than racially discriminating against blacks because believing blacks are innately inferior or criminals.

If the term Racism can be used interchangeably with any racial discrimination vs believing a race is inferior or has innate qualities... like zaryia and others suggest... its not a good word to use to describe any one. They are very very different concepts. And using the term "racist" is imprecise at best or slanderous at worst. Which is why using the term always carries the implication of its canonical meaning.

The dictionary is literally refuting your usage of its definitions.

No it's not. You're an idiot.

#3: racial prejudice or discrimination

Yes you are.

Trump's actions at the apartments were discriminatory and racist. As were his comments on the Judge with Mexican heritage. There is no way around this other than spin and incorrectly debating semantics.

Which is why most Trump supporters just say it didn't happen.

Some more Definitions for you,

Google:

rac·ist/ˈrāsəst/nounnoun: racist; plural noun: racists

1. 1.a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another."the comments have led to her being called a racist"

   synonyms:

   racial bigot, racialist, xenophobe, chauvinist; More

   antonyms:

   multicultural, tolerant

Cambridge:

racism

noun [ U ]

US ​ /ˈreɪ·sɪz·əm/

social studies the belief that some races are better than others, or the unfairtreatment of someone because of his or her race

You're spinning.

Reality would suggest things are more complicated than what your trying to suggest. Not to mention from a personal level, there is more evidence to suggest that trump himself wasn't racist... but his businesses catered to racist sentiment during the 70s/80s which... as crime dropped and that sentiment change.. so has his business practices.

And your ignoring the dictionary.

Notorius fake news site.

Real info please.

Google:

rac·ist/ˈrāsəst/nounnoun: racist; plural noun: racists

1. 1.a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another."the comments have led to her being called a racist"

   synonyms:

   racial bigot, racialist, xenophobe, chauvinist; More

   antonyms:

   multicultural, tolerant

Cambridge:

racism

noun [ U ]

US ​ /ˈreɪ·sɪz·əm/

social studies the belief that some races are better than others, or the unfairtreatment of someone because of his or her race

That's 3 now. You're spinning.

Trump showed racist actions in the past. And not just this black apartments ordeal.

Paul Ryan: Trump made "textbook definition of a racist comment"

https://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/web-video/paul-ryan-trump-made-textbook-definition-racist-comment

Trump pilloried Curiel in explicitly racist terms, telling CNN’s Jake Tapper: “He’s a Mexican. We’re building a wall between here and Mexico. … I’ve had horrible rulings, I’ve been treated very unfairly by this judge. Now, this judge is of Mexican heritage. … Look, he’s proud of his heritage, OK? I’m building a wall.”

You can keep trying use 1 definition you like, but you can't detach it from the original or secondary meanings. Have you ever talked to another person? Using this term implies whether you want it to, a particular belief.

Unless you always go out of the way to precisely state what you mean, that your only suggesting that there was racial discrimination. Then yes, trumps businesses were racist... so is the US government's affirmative action based on that.

But no one or very few people suggest affirmative action is racist. Most people that attempt to use your definition intentionally malign a person as a character assassination... they can go back to the dictionary and be like look people use this word this way its technically correct! But someone being labeled as racist carries an implied belief about race because you can't separate the meaning from public discourse.

Lol, the Mexican race.

@LJS9502_basic: You used the Guardian which has a left leaning bias...

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/

No. If the definition were a misuse of the word, the definition would be preceded by the word 'slang'. as so:

Bitch

noun

a female dog: The bitch won first place in the sporting dogs category. a female of canines generally.

Slang .

1. a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, especially a woman.
2. a lewd woman.
3. Disparaging and Offensive . any woman.

Slang . a person who is submissive or subservient to someone, usually in a humiliating way: Tom is so her bitch—he never questions what she decides.

He is suggesting Curiel has conflicts of interest in a completely unrelated case due to his "Mexican Heritage" and part of the "Latino Lawyers Association". That's ludicrous and you know it. He also said he's a Mexican. Judge Curiel is not Mexican. His entire train of thought was bogus and something out of Stormfront.

On June 2, 2016, Trump told the Wall Street Journalthat Curiel had "an absolute conflict" in presiding over the litigation given that he is "of Mexican heritage" and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association. (When Trump said in a separate interview that Curiel "is a member of a club or society, very strongly pro-Mexican" in referfence to the group, PolitiFact National rated his statement Mostly False.) Trump told the journal the judge’s background was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. "I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest," Trump said.

There is a reason even GOP members called that sentiment racist.

You're spinning every solid example I give. I don't know if he's a racist anymore though, it seems he may says and do this stuff for votes as many hate groups are on the right.

I used 3 different definitions now. Merriam-Webster. Cambridge. Google.

All stating "or" explicitly.

You're spinning. Also you're changing the subject to semantics rather than Trump's actions. Turning away black tenants, that's a stain no matter how you slice it.

What is the purpose of copying an entire conversation? Take the points you want to argue out, and reply accordingly.

Most people aren’t reading anything here - especially on mobile devices.

Your trying to lock down racism to one very specific usage.. which is ignorant of the wider usage, and the implication of the OR can't be arbitrarily removed.

I suppose, for example, if someone were to say "I hate all Mexicans" you wouldn't find that racist at all?

I'm not saying its being misused currently.

As the dictionary explains that it includes usage. So at some point it was misused, that got included in the usage, and now there is a secondary definition. However, just because its listed as a usage, doesn't negate the canonical meaning, nor does it allow you to use only the meaning you want... which is different.

All the definitions are valid. It carries with racial discrimination an implication of a belief.

Prejudice, sure, but Mexicans have a black/white population... its no different than saying I hate all Americans. People have a prejudice of what an "murican" is.

Racial discrimination by any definition requires only that discrimination by race took place.

English syntax isn't that difficult to figure out.

But racism generally requires or implies a belief about race when used in place of "racial discrimination".

Apparently English syntax is difficult.