Spot the error:
Lots of black men were elected in the period from 1865-1873. Therefore, racism did not play a primary role in the political events of that period.
I’m not saying it has to be written for “me”. I’m saying it is aimed at Democrats generally, to persuade them to switch strategy.
The mental toolkit used to evaluate the truth or otherwise of ideas doesn’t change. It is all about evaluation of evidence.
Heh, do you know how this sounds? 
No. I agree that white supremacists helped him get in power.
Also, I believe the Russians helped him get in power.
If you have no interest in helping for racism to go away, then I am not sure that I have any interest in continuing a conversation with you. Obviously, we have different goals, one of mine is an equitable society. If that is not your goal, then you are right, then the article was not written for you, it was written for those who see racism as a bad thing, something that we should try to eliminate, not something we should learn to accommodate.
That’s exactly why I’m pointing out it is a “straw man” argument. It is an attack based on a willful misunderstanding of what is being argued, based on a false analogy.
Yes, it is true that I did not explicitly SAY “oh, and by the way, as ought to be obvious, when I say a ‘host of other factors’, I mean that, unlike (say) a ‘lynching’, racism wasn’t the overwhelming “but-for” factor animating his campaign”.
However, it is inherently obvious that when someone says “X was motivated by a WHOLE HOST of factors”, it ought to be understood.
The proper rebuttal would be “I disagree, and challenge you to describe that host of factors in more detail”.
Spot the assumption.
I misspoke. Of course I am interested in making racism go away.
What I meant to say, was I had no interest in ignoring anything.
No, it’s not obvious at all. Slavery was motivated by a whole host of factors. Does my saying that imply that I think white supremacy was not a critical factor? Of course not.
In the context of responding to an essay filled with evidence that racism played a critical role in Trump’s worldview and campaign, observing in rebuttal that other stuff contributed to his rise is not a rebuttal and should not be read to imply some detailed rebuttal.
But we have at least now sorted out the source of our disagreement, which is some petty difference over whether I should have read something deeper in your post. That seems pretty boring to me, so how about we just acknowledge that I didn’t read it the way you wanted? That way, we might return to arguing over some issue of substance.
I think you’re also overstating Coates’ thesis. He says: “The triumph of Trump’s campaign of bigotry presented the problematic spectacle of an American president succeeding at best in spite of his racism and possibly because of it.”
Do you agree or disagree that Trump succeeded “at best in spite of his racism and possibly because of it”?
I’m gonna need a bit more, I’m afraid.
So when Trump said:
He was lying?
Am I on Candid Camera? Is this all an elaborate prank? I don’t think I’ve ever seen such insistence on being factual incorrect on the SDMB before.
I’m sure Trump’s previous birtherism was a boon for some folks, but Trump was also the lone billionaire (presumably). Can we say his wealth was an equal factor? You may be right, but simply saying he was a birther, therefore that was a big factor in his success doesn’t do the work to make the connection.
I read all of the linked articles at lunch. Coates’s article “Other People’s Pathologies” was the best of the bunch, and very well written. It’s hard to summarize my disagreement with Coates because I don’t think there are any significant factual matters that he presents incorrectly. I agree that the umbrella of white supremacy has cast a long shadow over the US for a long ass time. Maybe his approach of wielding the sledgehammer of racism to attack those institutions is working, but it seems like the only tool he has. Chait and Coates used the basketball analogy in different ways, but it started like this:
I think Coates feels being the analyst is more effective at fighting white supremacy than being the coach. That’s probably the crux of my disagreement - that’s not exactly right but I’m struggling to describe it.
Do you know what the word “unofficially” means?
He dropped out in may of 2011, like 8 months before the first primary vote was cast.
I thought about running for president in 2016, even talked about it with some of my friends, Does that mean that I ran for president?
Whether he was lying, exaggerating, or mistaken, he wasn’t actually campaigning. He had no campaign.
But your original argument was that his supposed failure in 2012 shows that his birther bullshit wasn’t a factor in 2016. That’s ridiculous, because he chose not to run in 2012 long before any votes were cast, and thus long before we would have had a reasonable basis of comparison.
Again, the one time he actually filed and ran a campaign, actually competing for votes, he was the only birther against a crowd of non birthers, with an electorate that was significantly birther. And thus it’s very reasonable to posit that being a birther was a big part of his success.
Even granting the accuracy of the analogy, presumably when speaking to the league officials who control the hiring of referees, you would want to speak as the analyst, right?
I think there are some pretty clear lessons from Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois, hinted in the Black Pathology piece. Washington advocated for ignoring racial hurdles and focusing on self- and community improvement. In the end, they made a lot less difference than Dr. King, who focused on identifying and resisting oppression. Of course, he had the benefit of the progress made after Du Bois and Washington. But what a waste it would have been if he had been just another self-improvement guru.
That would be because I was absolutely correct in what I posted.
It’s a bit of a stretch to say there was a campaign in the first place, but it’s absurd to say it “failed”. He decided not to run, for whatever reason, after dipping his toe in the water. There was not enough of an actual campaign for it to “fail”.
If I think I might got to Law School, but decide not to, would you say I failed out of Law School?
He campaigned the same way in 2016 that he did in 2012. The difference is that in 2016 the message he chose resonated while in 2012 it didn’t.
If you quit before the first term started because you don’t think you could pass, then yeah.
No he didn’t. In 2016, he actually had a campaign. He had campaign workers, he filed paperwork, he had a website, he announced that he was running – that’s all actually running for president. Saying for a few months “I might run for President”, without any campaign workers, filing any paperwork, having a campaign website, or declaring he’s running, isn’t actually running a campaign for president, and it certainly can’t be compared to the other circumstance.
There weren’t any votes. There was no possibility of “resonating” without votes to actually measure it. He didn’t run in 2012. It’s not comparable to 2016. If he had actually run in 2012, he might have won, but we’ll never know because he didn’t run.
No he didn’t. He never officially declared candidacy for the 2012 race; all he did was give some speeches and then announce in May 2011 that he wouldn’t be a candidate. (The fact that at that point he described his previous speeches as “unofficially campaigning” equates to having run an actual campaign only inside Trump’s head. I’m not surprised that he believes they’re the same thing, but I’m quite surprised that you do.)
In the runup to the next election, on the other hand, Trump formally declared his candidacy in June 2015, and then got down to actual campaigning.
But in this analogy John Mace never even applied to law school, much less got accepted or matriculated or enrolled. If he thinks about going to law school, talks to some law school admissions officials and gets some promotional literature, and then decides not to bother applying, he has not “failed out of law school”.
Not even if he later describes his desultory exploration of those options as “unofficially applying to law school” because he’s a scatterbrained bloviating sack of shit. (Of course not saying that you are any such thing, John: just that somebody who retroactively rhetorically inflates his past activities in this way to make them sound more impressive to credulous people would be such a thing.)
The fact that Trump described his 2012 illusions as “unofficially campaigning” is just one of many signs that Trump’s connection with facts and the truth is extremely tenuous. It’s not evidence that he actually campaigned any more than his claims about Obama being born in Kenya are evidence that Obama was born in Kenya.
“The noble-white-labor archetype did not give white workers immunity from capitalism.”
-Nonsense from Coates.
To suggest workers should have wanted “immunity from capitalism” at the same time that capitalism was lifting people out of poverty at a rate unseen in the history of mankind is a clue to the foundational errors Coates makes. For all of the sense he talks about race and culture, his analysis will always be wildly distorted by his misunderstanding of economics.
Coates needs to revisit fellow Black Marxist Eric Williams’ work which draws distinctions between what he called corporate capitalism (mercantilism) which enabled slavery and laissez-faire capitalism which destroyed it.