[QUOTE=HRC]
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”
[/QUOTE]
Not all Republicans, not even half of the Republicans, but specifically “Half of a Trump’s supporters”.
If you do not figure prominently among those she grossly generalized about, why are you so desperately trying to find a way to be offended by what she said when she wasn’t talking about you?
Are racists a protected class whose rights need defending?
But you can argue all you want about whether someone should be offended or not, and keep losing elections, or you can learn from mistakes and have a chance at winning next time. Your choice.
You are correct in that one can rationalize themselves into anything. There probably were quite a few people who used the flawed logic that you present there. I consider that line of thought to be entirely unreasonable, but it is likely one that was followed by many looking for a reason to be offended. You even admit that they have no reason to be sure that she is calling them a racist, but that they go ahead and decide that she did, just to be on the safe side?
Like I said, I agree that what she said turned out to be a political misstep, I just don’t think it should have been one. Calling out racists hasn’t been a political misstep since we thought we solved the issue of whether not racism was welcome in the public sphere a generation and a half ago.
Finally, I don’t see what is wrong with pointing out that someone is on the same side as racists, which is what she actually did. She didn’t say that your buddy Bob was a racist because he supports trump, she said that Bob is on the same team as racists, that Bob is enabling racists, that Bob is looking to help elect a president who will further enable racists. And honestly, I think that that is what they really are offended about. That they are perceived, (correctly) to be aiding those who are against equality, and they don’t want to be perceived as aiding those who are against equality. So, rather than stopping aiding those against equality, they lash out at the message, and take personal offense to the message.
In analogy, if I say that half the people in this room are racists, and that those people are deplorable, and they don’t represent america, you have three options. You can leave the room, which is what I was trying to get you to do by describing your company. You can say, “I’m a racist, I belong here.”, and stay in the room. Or, you can look around, act confused, and say, “Is she talking about me? Huh, you know I’m not sure. I should assume that she is talking about me, and keep hanging out with these racists.”
If someone says half of all Americans are too foolish and irrational to be trusted, am I barred from criticizing that statement unless I first stipulate that (a) it’s true, and that (b) I definitely fall into the “foolish and irrational” half?
If you declare that half of all men can’t be left alone with a small child – slowly and patiently explaining that such males would surely molest that kid – what, is any given man unable to take issue with that comment unless he thereby announces that you’re 100% right about men in general, and about him in particular?
If a Republican confidently assures the country that half of all Democrats are traitors who should be lined up and shot, does he get to shrug off any criticism with a quick, well, look: are you a traitor who should be shot? No? Well, then, you’re someone he clearly wasn’t talking about, so why all the brouhaha?
And that’s insane. That’s not how anything is supposed to work.
No, you’re taking it a step too far. I honestly don’t know whether she thinks Bob is on the same team as racists or whether she thinks Bob is a racist. I only know that if Bob, who’s been called a racist by Democrats, thought she was referring to him and asked me whether that’s so, I’d have to reply, well, maybe she was, Bob; I’m not sure. Oh, I know you don’t see yourself as a racist; and you know I don’t think you’re a racist; but you and I both know that plenty of Democrats think you’re a racist.
This has been repeated ad nauseam and I choose not to buy into the accusation that Trump won because progressives were too mean to the Trump supporters. HRC was a problematic candidate to be sure but it wasn’t her “deplorables” comment that lost the election. To a large extent I blame the Democratic party for lack of imagination when it came to viable candidates. (I don’t wish to re-litigate this issue again.)
The next election that democrats fail to win won’t be because they’ve insulted Trump supporters. It will be because they’ve failed to advance an agenda and leadership that serves to inspire progressives, independents and soft-line Republicans to get out to vote DEM. It’s a waste of time and resources to try to convert those who are truly deplorable, i.e. racists, homophobes, misogynists, etc.; The overwhelming majority of whom can only be defeated by attrition.
That’s the difference. If Bob asked me, I’d ask him, “Well, do you consider yourself to be a racist?” “No? Then she wasn’t talking about you then.” Simple, and not requiring the convoluted double think that is required to become offended by thinking that she was calling him deplorable.
If he continues to sputter, you pivot to more fully answer. “Did you see what David duke said, now he’s a deplorable racist, amiright?” (If he argues with this line, then he is most likely a racist, FTR.)
Now you have demonstrated an example of those who are the deplorable racists, rather than equivocating that it is ambiguous as to whether or not bob is a racist. If Bob disagrees with what David Duke has said, then Bob knows that he is not a racist.
Then, if you are really pushing the issue, and trying to get Bob on your side, you say, “And there are quite a number of racists that are planning on voting for trump, because the agenda that trump has been advertising seems to be beneficial to those racists.”
If bob gets offended, then he is either the sort that looks for offense, and then gets offended when he finds it, or he’s a racist. Both of those are deplorable traits in my book.
Now, if I personally suspect that Bob may be a racist, then I may answer more the way that you did. “Maybe she was Bob, I’m not sure. You know how you refuse to hire black people? She may have been talking about you and people like yourself. I know that you don’t see yourself as a racist, you have very reasonable reasons to not hire black people, but you and I know that plenty of democrats think that people who refuse to hire black people are racist.”
Well, look, “half of all men” is a subset of “men”, and therefore just a minority of the population. (At that, “all men” is arguably a minority of the population, too; but put that aside for now.) Likewise, “half of all Democrats” is a subset of “all Democrats”, which makes it a subset of “all Americans”; but so what?
But that’s just it: you’re answering the question of whether she thinks he’s a racist by asking him – whether he thinks he’s a racist?
You’re the one introducing a second step!
To me, whether he thinks he’s a racist is irrelevant. And whether I think he’s a racist, that’s irrelevant too. If he asks me whether she thinks he’s a racist, it strikes me as convoluted doublethink to answer that question by going down another road: the question is what she thinks, not what he thinks or what I think.
Yes, but so what? If he knows that he’s not a racist, and I know that he’s not a racist, then how is that relevant to whether someone else thinks he’s a racist?
I would agree that you should feel free to criticize any statement you like. You are barred from nothing. If you present a flawed argument, it may be criticized, but that is not anything the same as being barred.
For instance, the statement you just made, you were not barred from making it, even though it contains many flaws, if you are relating this in any way to what hillary said.
She did not say that half of americans are anything, she said nearly half of trump supporters. Trump supporters are a subset of republicans, who are a subset of politically active americans, who are a subset of americans. At best, she is talking 1/8 or so of americans, not anywhere near half.
Also, I saw little criticizing of her statement itself, I saw making of it, many reinterpretations of it, and many who chose to take offense to it, but as to her statement itself, it has not been criticized on it’s factualness.
If you declare that half of men who have been previously convicted of a sex crime can’t be left alone with a small child, would you be offended if you had never been convicted of a sex crime?
That’s just about what trump did, but in any case, that is not close to what clinton said.
That would be insane. In your examples, there are no qualifiers, just percentages. If a republican says that half of democrats are traitors, then there is no test to see if I am a traitor or not. A republican will see me, and consider me to be 50% chance of being a traitor.
If a republican said that half of democrats who participate in riots are traitors, I may disagree, but I would not consider them to be calling me a traitor, as I don’t participate in riots.
Same as if a democrat says that racists are deplorable. Unless you are a racist, you should not be offended.
We have good evidence that Trump supporters voted for a candidate with demonstrable history (past and current) of racist, misogynistic and bigoted statements. Many of those supporters also align themselves with hate groups.
Now, you show me evidence that half the men in America can’t be trusted around young children and I’m on board with your claim. Failing that, let’s just discuss what’s demonstrably true, not demonstrably false.
She’s never met Bob. Why would she have an opinion on whether or not he was a racist? I suppose you could ask bob specifically, “Do you refuse to hire minorities, do you refuse to allow minorities to vote…” and go down the line. But you know, most people actually do have a good idea as to what constitutes racism. Most people are aware of whether or not they are racist.
You are literally putting words into her mouth at that point. You can’t answer the question as to whether or not Hillary thinks that Bob is racist. What makes you any sort of authority on what she thinks about Bob?
And some random guy on a blog somewhere is not the defining factor.
My brain just 'ploded. How is what some random person thinks abut you or bob going to change anything?
Is Bob harmed in any way that Jeff the SJW in his mother’s basement thinks that Bob’s anti-AA manifesto sounded a bit racist to him? Does Jeff’s tsking about it mean that Bob needs to now vote against Clinton for principled reasons?
When a democrat says that racists are deplorable, the real message – the one received loud and clear by the folks you say explained this with a sneer – is that the democrat is, impliedly, saying people that I think are racists are deplorable.
We sort of take it for granted most of the time: if I ever tell you that something is expensive, odds are we both know I’m just telling you my opinion. If I mention that my wife is beautiful, you don’t need to interrupt with a quick clarification that some folks agree with me but some folks – including you – don’t. Instead, we just have conversations where one of us implies an “I think”, and the other infers an “I think”, and much of the time no attention needs to be drawn to that.
But sometimes it’s the key to a sentence, and, uh, attention must be paid.
Imagine there’s a guy named Bob, who doesn’t believe that he’s a racist. Imagine, too, that I also don’t believe Bob is a racist. Imagine that some Democrat declares that anybody who wants to scrap affirmative action is a racist.
Now, if Bob asks me whether said Democrat thinks he’s a racist, I wouldn’t ask him for his own opinion; that’s irrelevant. Also irrelevant: my opinion. If he wants to scrap affirmative action, I can tell him that Democrat’s opinion.
If a second and a third and a fourth Democrat take that position on racism, I’ll again be able to answer Bob’s question: not by asking whether he thinks he’s a racist, or by offering my opinion on whether he’s a racist; but by taking his desire to scrap affirmative action, and noting what Dem 2 and Dem 3 and Dem 4 said.
And so, if a fifth Democrat then says that racists are deplorable to the point of being irredeemable – well, Bob’s opinion of himself is still irrelevant, and so is my opinion of Bob; the question is, is Dem 5 in agreement with Dem 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 about a desire to scrap affirmative action? And, well, I don’t know.
I’m not. Which is why, if Bob asked me whether she was referring to him, I’d have to say that I’m genuinely not sure, for the reasons I mentioned.
Uh, no?
But, look: I’m telling you that I genuinely can’t say whether Clinton had guys like Bob in mind when she talked about the racists who were deplorable to the point of being irredeemable. If someone tells me that anyone who wants to scrap affirmative action is a racist, I can so opine about what they think of Bob; but I can’t do that for Clinton. Can you?
It isn’t that they were ‘too mean’ :rolleyes: to Trump supporters. It’s that for the last 50 years the left has been hurling accusations of racism where non exists, sexism where none exists, and accusations of the worst sort of human impulse at anyone not fully on board with whatever they were trying to pull off at the time. You guys have no idea of the resentment you’ve created with all this bullshit because until talk radio and the internet came along, those on the right had no way to unite and make their voice heard. You had a monopoly on the news media, Hollywood and education and up to that time the only national voices were those of liberals. So you got cocky and began to believe that most of the country was behind you, and with the advent of Obama’s presidency you kicked it all into high gear, even to the point of beginning to attack each other. What you have in government now is the result, and it’s very likely even more people would have voted for Trump/the Republicans were it not for Trump’s abrasive personality and talk about killing terrorist families and so forth.
There’s been no racism or sexism from any conservatives in the last 50 years?
If this isn’t your point, then what is your point? That some accusations have been false or mistaken? If so, do you imagine a future real world with no false or mistaken accusations ever? That doesn’t strike me as anything other than a fantasy.
Apart from the slight downside of ending up with Trump as President, I am pleased with your resolute conviction. It will keep Republicans on power.
Here’s what you don’t see: there are a whole bunch of people that don’t have the skills as a rhetor or the temperament to engage in debate. They don’t like being called racists and bigots. But they don’t debate the merits of the charge. They just absorb the fact that one party holds them in contempt, and then they vote.
GOP: Majority in the House. Majority in the Senate. God help us, Trump. And 37 governors, and 68 state legislative chambers.
Yeah, progressives are doing great. No need for you to change your approach. Stand firm.