So, brown people like me are a failure for not lifting a nation like El Salvador and do not deserve a chance to improve their lives and the lives of others in the USA?
Well, I guess I have to thank you for showing all that you are indeed clueless.
So you’re perfectly willing to make inferences about someone you don’t like (me), but feel the need to call out other people when they do the same about someone else. I get it, but let’s at least acknowledge the inconsistency.
And here I thought we’d been getting along lately.
Plain fact is that HD is clearly coming across to many in that thread as saying some blatantly racist things. I understand that you disagree, but you might want to bring along more than a “you’re mischaracterizing his words” drive-by and actually explain why you believe his statements do not actually target brown people despite appearances.
(OTOH if all you want is to call me stupid, there are plenty of opportunities to do so. Again, you do you, and I wish you well of it.)
.
Accuracy is significant here. I made a correct inference, and called out an incorrect one. Though perhaps you would consider that distinction “pedantry”.
I didn’t read that thread. I read the post that iiandyiiii quoted, plus I went back a few posts in that exchange to see the context. iiandyiiii distorted what HD was saying.
There’s nothing to say. HD didn’t make any statement about brown people. There are no appearances that need to be explained away. This is purely about people looking to twist innocuous statements into racist ones, whether in order to score points (aka the “race card”) or because their own mindset is warped WRT race issues.
Only F-P’s interpretation of posts is correct! No one can ever have a different interpretation of any posts without being wrong. Thank you for sharing your inerring wisdom with us poor mortals!
The suggestion that the state of development of the nation from which an immigrant flees is somehow attributable to their individual skills and merit is completely incoherent unless you understand it to be a racist claim. The people who deny that are the ones whose “mindset is warped WRT race issues.”
You know what, you’re absolutely correct. Your initial post above was not being pedantic, and you have my sincere apologies for it. Perhaps I’m deliberately looking for something that’s not there, and that’s really unfair and unkind of me. If your posts sometimes get on my nerves, that’s my hangup, and I shouldn’t be on the attack. Again, I’m sorry.
.
It’s admittedly a very shaky claim, but it’s not at all incoherent. That’s ridiculous. To the contrary, it’s extremely coherent - the problem with it is that it’s too simplistic.
OK, we’re good.
But what’s this thing of adding an extra period at the end of every post?
I think it is worse to ignore when someone from those ‘infesting’ countries, as Trump is describing the families who are being separated, is telling you that it is racist. It is really tiresome to see people like you ignoring the context forest for the weak excuse tree.
You don’t get special authority in interpreting someone else’s statements just because you’re a member of the group being discussed.
The opposite, if anything.
Would you rather see “Regards”?
Just like the ones demanding privilege talk. Incidentally racism to me is just a form of ignorance and here I’m taking into account how Trump even undermined people like HD that are defending a policy that Trump even ‘corrected’. This is no different from the guys that stood up talking about defending their heritage when in reality they are/were defending monuments to disparage the memory of the slaves and their descendants.
Fair enough. HD’s post was insolent, sarcastic and nasty but made no racist statement: in fact it made little statement at all but was cleverly phrased like a rhetorical question.
And in a way I can’t blame the Board’s right-wingers for resorting to snideness and insolence. The Board’s liberals sow what they reap.
It’s all rather sad, really. America needs to re-ignite a bipartisan dialog and the SDMB could help in that task: there are many intelligent and articulate Dopers from both the “left” and from the “right.” Yet mostly we waste energy telling the other side how much we hate them.
Here’s a Modest Proposal: The Board’s right-wingers should start a thread in IMHO debating among themselves, with lefties asked to confine their participation to asking an occasional respectful question.
It might work — especially if the righties just ignore any disrespectful injections. I think the rest of us could learn a lot about the right-wing mind-set just be watching the Board’s righties debate among themselves.
I didn’t describe it as “racist”. I understand that some will disagree, but I think my actual characterization of the post, and the actual words I used, were reasonable.
Not sure we’re referring to the same post. I was commenting on the post linked in iiandyiiii’s post above.
In that other thread, JohnT had claimed the US needed immigrants from non-white countries in order to be economically robust. HD responded that these immigrants had not been making their home countries economically robust, so the notion that they would make the US economically robust is unconvincing.
It’s a rather simple, intuitive, and on-point response. At the same time, it’s also overly simplistic. JohnT’s point had been that the US in particular is in a position where population growth is essential and this is something these immigrants could provide. By contrast, in their home countries, population growth was not crucial and there were other obstacles to economic growth. As I said above, it was a shaky point. (That said, by the standards of the bilge which routinely passes for thought on this board, it’s not bad. Probably in the upper half, I would guess.)
But in any event, right or wrong, it was a substantive if simplistic argument, there was nothing whatsoever racist about it, and it did not involve any denigration of non-white people as a group.
If someone said “Considering how poorly Africans have managed Africa, I don’t think importing a bunch of Africans, who have been entirely unable to manage their home continent, would be beneficial to our country” – would you also describe it as “a substantive if simplistic argument, there was nothing whatsoever racist about it, and it did not involve any denigration of non-white people as a group”?
Depends on context.
If the person made that statement in a vacuum, then it sounds bad.
But if the person was responding to someone else who said “the US needs for a lot of Africans to come here and manage this country”, then it’s completely benign. HD’s comment was made in that context.
Okay, so then we’ve found the point or points of our disagreement. I don’t think I agree 100% about the context. But even in the exact context you suggest, I think it would be reasonable to characterize such a statement as implying that Africans are “inferior” and “undesirable” (the terms I used) in terms of helping to manage the US.
I edit my posts relatively often, whether due to fat-fingering, typing faster than my brain, or multitasking. When we edit, the “Last edited by” note appears immediately below the last line of the post. I found it unsightly and cluttered, and began inserting an extra period whenever I edited in order to create some separation and hopefully improve readability (as VBB eliminates carriage returns at the end of posts). Apparently I edit often enough that it became simpler to add it in the majority of my posts by default.
tl;dr: It’s a useless quirk.
.
I can picture Willie Wonka saying “reverse that”.
I take context into account to conclude what I said. There can not be a worst context than defending an inhumane policy from a president that uses terms like “animals” (it may be plausible to claim that it was just directed to gangs, but Trump’ s statements later showed that it was his intention to call all of the Hispanics as such) or that the families are “infecting” America.
Probably not. I clicked the blue-arrows in the quote boxes and stopped when after a chain of seven or so, I finally got to a HD post.
So, what do you think of my advice to open a thread for right-wingers to debate right-wingers on substantive issues?
(The subthread here right now is nonsensical: scrutinizing semantic details unrelated to any policy matter.)