(06-21-2018 05:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 03:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 12:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 12:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 11:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  1)I’m not “the left” so I can’t answer that. And read my sentence again - I said all immigrants COMING TO THE US ILLEGALLY (see all caps for the very important qualifier you left off). The key is that the water carriers used to say Trump was only calling certain immigrants, or Mexicans (either legal or illegal) names - this time he painted with a broad brush, no question.

2) at worst the tweet is racist because the illegal immigrants he is talking about are Hispanic. At best he is being nationalistic, and suggesting that all of the illegal immigrants are of such character as resulting in an “infestation.”

3) Not sure what the Dems want right now. It’s clear they don’t want the zero tolerance policy, though. I know a few bills are being proposed by Dems, but I haven’t read them. Not sure why you’re asking me what a political party wants - you could answer that’s just as easily as I could by doing some reading.

1. You are a little bit left and side with them on most matters. I side with the right on most matters, so it is not unfair to refer to me as the right.

But in your last sentence you say:

I appreciate that Trump, for once, didn't hide that when he was denigrating all immigrants, and not providing an out for his water carriers.

That is the part I was talking about.

2. If most of the illegals are Hispanic, that is not Trump's fault. Would you prefer if he said, we need to cut down on all illegal immigrants except for the ones who would be minorities is we let them in? I see nothing in his policies that discriminates against Hispanics, as Hispanics.

3. OK, since you suggested it, I will answer it. The Dems want to create a campaign issue to run on in November and again in 2020.

Your response on #2 is disturbing.

OO - this is two times in a row you've either twisted or misunderstood my words with regards to #1. And it's annoying because I explained it already. The preface I applied in the first sentence applies to the second - if it didn't, why would I have prefaced the first use of the phrase "all immigrants?"

And I'm sorry you find my response to #2 disturbing. I find the fact that Trump suggested all illegal immigrants were "infesting" our country to be disturbing. It's a dehumanizing phrase that does not take the humanity of the vast majority of illegal immigrants crossing our southern border into consideration.

Okey-doke. In the future I will peruse all your previous writings to see if what you said is what you meant.

Kind f a ticky-tack point for somebody who is hanging his hat on an interpretation of the word "infestatation" to support a charge of racism.

and was it him or you that applied it to the illegal immigrants "crossing our southern border"? From the quote you gave us, "Trump saying that all immigrants coming to the US illegally are "infesting" America". So you limit it to the southern border and claim it is racist? Good one.

My unease with your attitude in #2 lies more in your use of claiming racism for statements that do not mention race because the preponderacy of the subject group is of one group or another. Most illegals coming across our southern border are Hispanic. So are most of the legals. Most of the illegals coming in from the Northwest are Asian. So are most of the legals.

If I were to complain that the Indian casinos charge for things that other casinos provide free, is that racist? It's true, but that is beside the point. Or would it be better to say that hey have racist policies since most of the people they charge are white?

I think it dangerous to assume that actions and policies that cover everybody are racist because the impacted persons are slewed more to one group or another. Are speed limits in far south Texas racist, because they impact Hispanics more than speed laws in Wyoming?

Or, I don't know, maybe just ask if that's what I meant? If there seem to be two competing ideas in two different sentences, maybe it's better to ask for clarification than assume and attack? Sure, I could have been clearer as Tanq suggested, but since both of my sentences referenced the same tweet, and that tweet by Trump was clearly talking about all illegal immigrants, I figured it was obvious that I was talking about illegal immigrants. But hey, I guess I shouldn't have assumed.

But see, this is a prime example of what is making the Quad almost unbearable lately. We have stopped debating topics and policy for the most part and what people are saying or trying to say, and instead we're falling into some awful habits. We regularly talk past each other and don't address what others say, we often attack what we think that others are saying if there is some confusion, we're often projecting what we think one's stance would be onto them and then asking that person to defend that stance, we nitpick a single detail of an argument, as opposed to the crux of it, and so on. And mind you, I'm not saying I'm not guilty of any of these - I'm sure I am.

Just look at this situation here. First, you've tried twice to get me to explain the thoughts and opinions of not only a monolithic group (the left and Democrats), but of a specific person.

Then, instead of confirming a confusing statement you went on the attack about a position you thought I was making, and for some reason tied it to a position I've never taken (not using the word "illegal immigrant").

Then, you asked me a question about a position I hadn't taken, about why that tweet was being viewed as racist - not why I viewed it as being racist. But yet, when I provided a response to why that tweet could be considered racist, you attacked me as if that was my own opinion. I never said I thought it was racist.

Heck, I never said the tweet from Trump was explicitly racist - I answered your original question about what topic might be warranting the "racist" label. I was providing you an analysis of the situation, which you then turned personal by asking me personal questions about the situation. My opinion on the tweet, which you had not asked for, is that it is another example of Trumps overly nationalistic stance, that looks down upon outsiders and others. The word "infesting" has a serious dehumanizing component to it. And I did extrapolate

Then, instead of attacking the crux of my argument, which was that using the word "infesting" is dehumanizing, you take umbrage with my characterization of what specific illegal immigrants Trump is talking about. My opinion that he is being nationalistic and awful for using "infesting" to describe illegal immigrants does not change with their port of entry.

And finally, to this immediate thread, I do not see why you're trying to argue that Trump's tweet wasn't focused on illegal immigration on the southern border. As I said above, it doesn't really matter when you look at the crux of my argument, but even stranger, it doesn't make sense. Trump's tweet was clearly about illegal immigration on our southern border. He mentions MS-13 (which is a Central American gang), and it was tweeted at a time when we're dealing with an immediate crisis at the southern border. Are you seriously trying to argue that his tweet was not talking about the illegal immigration on our southern border? What context clues lead to you think he's also talking about, say, Europeans over staying their visas?

Well, in the interest of brevity, I will say these few things:

1. I asked if you would explain JAAO's accusation of racism, since he is not doing so. It appeared you accepted the challenge. Sorry. I thought we were debating civilly.

2. I still want to know what racist statements he was referring to when he said " the hateful and racist language being used to justify it".

3. I guess I am just tired of illegal border jumpers being called immigrants. Perhaps it makes me sensitive to the lack of differentiation between legal and illegal that I see so often from the MSM and the Democrats. I have no problem with Juan or Vladimir coming to the US legally, and jumping through the proper hoops. I have a big problem with Jose and Wolfgang sneaking in illegally and being treated as if they were the same as Juan and Vladimir. Either we have open borders or we have immigration controls. Neither situation is racist.