I think these are fine arguments to have. I favor all approaches. I’ve known people who have been persuaded by the “in your face” and very direct, very boundary pushing arguments (i.e “all of this is part of white supremacism [based on history of XYZ], and it’s very likely that you personally are strongly influenced by it whether you recognize it or not”), and I’ve known people who have been persuaded by the very gentle, easy-going, inch-by-inch arguments (i.e. “of course we’re all decent people who want to do the right thing – just consider the possibility that there might be a bit of unconscious bias that’s affecting how we look at this particular issue”) and everything in between.
But I didn’t start this discussion with the sole goal of persuading people that I’m right – I started it to see what other people thought about it, and I’ve learned a lot about how others see this issue.
I’ll say again that when you say “it’s a catch all label meant to shut down opposing conversation conversation”, you’re saying something about motives. You said “meant to shut down…”. So if you don’t think it’s meant to shut down opposing conversation, you shouldn’t say so.
If my mind is made up, then why try discussing things with me?
I always try to assume that my “opponents” are arguing honestly and trying their best. That’s what I’m doing. I’m explaining these issues as I understand them in the best way i can. I’m not being dishonest; I’m trying to be open to the opinion of others; etc. Isn’t it possible that I really do see this differently? There haven’t been any other identity-based conspiracy theories, especially none that have gotten such traction. We have a birther President. We’ve never had a truther President, or a Foster-murder president, etc.
And I have commented on the Benghazi investigations, on this board. It was very appropriate to investigate the Benghazi attacks, and Hillary Clinton’s use of email. And I’ve directly criticized her use of email on this board.
So I’ll suggest again that maybe I’m an honest and decent guy, arguing honestly and with an open mind, but I’ve just come to a different conclusion than you. It’s always easiest to believe that your opponents are either stupid, dishonest, or close-minded, but sometimes they aren’t. Maybe I’m a pretty smart, pretty honest, and pretty open-minded guy who just reached different conclusions than you.
It’s about winning at any cost, and it’s about utilizing racism to do so when possible. And it wouldn’t be possible ever, if our society wasn’t so infused with bias/racism/bigotry/white supremacism (take your pick for your preferred descriptor).
Or maybe he’s arguing openly and honestly and he’s just reached a different conclusion than you.
I’m somewhat dismayed that in my last three posts, I’ve been responding to personal attacks on my motivations (whether meant this way or not, that’s how it was written), on whether my mind is open, and on Coates’ intellectual honesty.
Why not just assume that me (and Coates, for that matter), are doing the best we can to understand this stuff, and are actually reasonably smart, honest, and open minded? Is it really impossible that we could have reached different conclusions on this stuff through honestly trying to figure it out and explain it?
Infused? A small minority, only about 8% support white supremacists.
While the vast majority of Americans polled expressed support for racial equality when asked in so many words ― 70 percent strongly agreed that “all races are equal,” and 89 percent agreed that all races should be treated equally …
I doubt polling is a good measure of biases that many people don’t realize they have. I don’t know the true number, but I suspect that far more people are influenced and lead to bias by societal bigotry and racism/white supremacism than realize it.
I’m not trying to impugn your motives, however it is difficult to accept a proposition like Coates’ at face value. There are thousands of reasons why someone might vote for Obama, then Trump. Or vote McCain, Romney, Trump. Or Obama and Clinton.
To take all of these reasons and make a rather firm conclusion that it must be white supremacy (not just racial bias, but outright white supremacy) is simply unsupported on its face. When there are thousands of reasons for something and one chooses the one which is facially absurd, has little evidence to support it, and casts his opponents in the worst possible light, then accusations of a poor motivation are fair (to Coates, not you).
Further, the lesson to be learned from Coates’ “analysis” is that I should not think critically, that I should blindly vote for Democrats lest I be tarred with the label of “white supremacist.” After all, if there is simply no reason at all to vote for Trump except that I am racially biased (even though I did not have a choice of a black candidate in the last race) then I must simply listen to Coates in the future about who I should vote for.
Are all people who disagree with you closed-minded, or just Coates? Is it not possible to be open-minded and reach the conclusions he (and I, for that matter) have reached? If not, then there’s not much point to discussing these things with you.
Neither Coates nor I would say that white supremacism is the only factor, just that it’s a very significant factor. And he has specifically said that not every Trump voter is a white supremacist.
No, others did – you attacked (or at least made a negative personal assertion about) Coates. I don’t think there’s any point to that, at least not if you’re really trying to learn about his views. Rather, why not trying to assume that he’s actually open minded and honest, but just somehow reached a different conclusion?
I took the “drawn his curve and then fit his arguments…” to be about his intellectual honesty, but if you meant it differently, then I’ll retract my statement.
As far as I can tell so far, the biggest objection from you, John Mace, is about use of the term “white supremacism”. If, in every instance in the article, that term were replaced with “racial bias (conscious or unconscious)”, or some other term, would you still have the same issues with the article? If not, then this is just a semantics discussion.
You mean some people think this about him? Okay. That’s incredibly interesting. Some people think that he’s a good writer who intelligently addresses these issues.
How about that racism was very significant in the 2016 election? If you agree with that, then the disagreement is only about exactly how significant it was. And “provably” is silly hyperbole. Without a time machine or psychic abilities, none of this stuff is provable. A poll about what people say they believe about their own racist beliefs doesn’t tell you about what they either don’t know, or are unwilling to say, about their own racist beliefs.
No, I would still have an issue with the article. Coates would still be claiming that Trump’s ideology is racism or racial bias. I don’t think Trump is free of racial bias, but I don’t think that is at the root of his ideology (if he can even be said to have one).
But, it’s hardly “just a semantic argument” when we’re talking about something like white supremacism. Words have meanings, and strong words have strong meanings. If I called you a Nazi, and defined a Nazi as someone who thinks like you, would you agree if I countered your objection by saying that our disagreement was simply about semantics?