Trump is not racist: Change my mind

I guess that's it indeed

 

What a humorous list of hard left sources. Surely there's no bias in any of that gaggle. But, where's the National Inquirer? And it's from the 70s, so why no quotes from Jet? Surely Dan Rather and even Cronkite had something to say on this. Dr. Laura? SPLC? Not even cheering from Stormfr0nt?

 

Why? I dont think I misunderstood anything

I'll just take your reply as an acknowledgement that you understand Crowder is a biased media figure

 

Even if like half of it contains some bias, the facts should be able to get derived from the rest, and maybe even from the biased sources as well.
Just because a source is affiliated with a certain movement or political current (and especially if they're open about it) doesn't mean the facts are false.
Also, if one asks the maker of a statement to provide sources why whine about them being mainly or even only from a particular side, by default even. Not after actually taking notice of the provided sources If you value assertions being accompanied by (special for the convo partner looked up and added) sources, you might be doing something wrong. I wouldn't exactly see this as an encouragement

 

^yeah.

MeAgain's sources are talking about a suit brought against Trump by the US government, that sort of thing can easily be verified. Media sources cant just lie about something supported by actual court documents lol

 

Plus the first link he posted is NPR.

NPR is about as neutral as you can get in the US

 

I suspect you'd only accept photos of Trump in literal Klan robes to meet your own definition of racism. Telling a person born in NYC who has Puerto Rican parents to go back to their own country, is textbook racist.

That was just this month. I think... hard to be sure, my perception of time is off. Trump years are like dog years.

 

Yea, the Clintons have such a fascinating past. Much like the Kennedys. I personally see nothing at all wrong with digging as far back as necessary to learn everything possible about anyone who wants to be the leader of a nation, any nation for that matter.

Also, people in the center, independent voters and such, aren't "the right" just because they aren't hard left. They're centrists and they often make the most important votes between hard left and hard right issues. So slathering a post with nothing but hard left "sources" says far more than what isn't being said on the right. It's this polarization and refusal to come to the middle of an issue that keeps it going back and forth with no hope of resolution.

But whenever that fails, there's always attacking the messenger, or calling them names.

 

Bwahahahahahahahahaha

I listen to them every morning and they're more slanted than the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Memphis Commercial Appeal, Orlando Sentinel and New York Times combined. NPR is my favorite source for snarky lines cleverly wedged in, especially during interviews where it's hoped the guest will stumble or get frustrated with NPR's utter bullshit.

I freakin LOVE NPR!

 

Oh now that is really really funny!

 

That's just it though, when you tell only half of the truth, the distortion is free to create damage. Deceit is deceit. You find it on both extremes.

 

The worst kind is lying to yourself--going to the postmodernist extreme of denying all objective facts so that you can dismiss inconvenient truths and live in your own comfortable cocoon. Logically, though (if we still accept logic), this would entail not engaging in internet discussion forums at all, unless we find some value in talking to ourselves.

 

But you seem to have decided in advance only half the truth is told, and also that it are extremes. Biased also doesn't equal deceit at all.
Yes, obviously there is bias and some deceit on both extremes, but we cannot state and conclude that about specific shared sources in advance just because they seem 'hard leftist' like you did in response to MeAgain there. Well, we can but it isn't useful or makes a lot of sense

 

Perhaps not. I try to see the world from the middle, which is why I don't glom to either party in the US. I sort of liked the libertarians for awhile, but couldn't get beyond all that legalized heroin talk. I dislike the hard right for pushing their faith onto people, something lawmakers here in Georgia have done for decades.

And I dislike the hard left for assuming that we all must be forced to "accept" their dogma or be hounded, doxxed and harassed into submission (in a rather Nazi-like manner from what I'm observing).

When I try to have a discussion on guns I get "you want to take away my rights" from the hard right. And I get "you support murder" from the hard left.

When I try to have a discussion about drugs I get "you just want to get high" from the hard right. And from the hard left I get "how dare you try to tell me what I can and cannot ingest".

I've watched this get worse and worse over the last decade to the point people are starting to think it's normal. It's not. It's intolerant bullshit. Like being in prison, if I don't pick a side, I'm doomed by both.

 

On here there are plenty of reasonable left leaning debaters, yet i find you often lump their efforts in with the few hard or extreme leftists on here or in general. That's also how your reply about MeAgains sources comes across.
I get the tendency to focus on the extremes; they're the most important to correct (and also often the easiest as well happily because well.. their arguments and how they handle themselves in debate are also generally extreme. Besides i sometimes focus on the people that are better simply ignored too We can't help reacting to it when that is what we notice most ). But its weird to see you lump in the more reasonable with the extremes because they're this or that (leftist for example), which is what it seems you were doing.
If you don't want a right leaning or other kind of particular source to be rejected or judged as deceit in advance, you should try to do the same with seemingly (hard) leftist sources.

I personally find it hard to take certain biased alt right sources and the people who share them seriously when they judge and reject all left and mainstream media as biased and deceit (without actually taking proper notice from it). Certainly if the posters don't bother to explain their stances and arguments, except with 'here's this' *drops link* or 'this youtube dude says it all'

 

Actually I was speaking in general terms about encounters and discussions I have in the real world. My only gripe in this place is that when we get the petty infighting, especially along political lines, site traffic suffers. I used to take for granted that the site would always be here, but I realize now that any site can be poisoned.

As for the media, it's all slanted and has been for most of my life. This doesn't shock me. I also don't feel sorry for hard right whiners who get booted from TWtr, IG, FB, YT etc when they KNOW their opinions might not be appreciated or wanted. They seem to prefer to whine and gripe instead of creating their own platforms with all that money they're sitting on (or so I have heard).

As for Trump, I still think trying so hard to attach the race card to him is feeble, sad politics. But I understand it since the Russian issue failed to take root. Seems like racism is the only tool left. And really, it's a boring subject. Most of the "racism" I see these days originates in the minds of the aggrieved, not the people they are targeting. At least the media has backed off from trying to convince me that the KKK is making a comeback (laughable).

But the nearly constant badgering of anything associated with white people is getting to be rather old as well. That matter in New Zealand, about "racism" toward robots, is a serious shark jump.

 

Well, as for politicians doing that: they should nuance and name the racism explicit and explain it. I regularly saw them do that (in dutch news and background articles, im not watching american tv or taking much notice from US newspapers).
As for a lot of people on this site: i am convinced they don't 'play the race card' as some kind of tool or trick to slander: they're serious and concerned. Hence why I find your general response of the race card being played just as tedious and basically empty retort as you the racism talk. But don't get me wrong, i understand Americans are polarized and tired of repeated opposite stances to a basically unconstructive extent. It's really sad to see. But I take notice of that only on here and indirectly through news. So I wish the constructive people and convos on here would get a little more credit and respect (hence my trouble with trolls and peeps who obstruct for fun in those threads, and why i keep pointing that out).

btw: people on here ideally should nuance/explain the racism accusations to Trump as well, and perhaps in half of the cases even call it different. As their convo partners might read diff things in a simple and the so maniest 'he's racist' remark. Ethnic discrimination is often a better description already, but still should be explained of course. Like when Trump stated some born and bred american democrat politicians should go home to their own countries because of their criticism. That's unworthy of an american president and there are many other examples.

Yes, but that's generally done by the extremes. A lot of criticism on our (im as white as they come) long time superior position is also very valid. I don't agree with stuff like renaming streetnames and removing statues, but that the superior position of the 'white protestant male' is being challenged in the US is a good thing. Besides, these white males are not being mistreated or their rights taken away: its the other americans, like most minorities, that are getting equalized (sp? ). And certain whites take that entirely the wrong way. On this site 6-eyed is the best example, besides of course a nonsensical extreme guy like Nudist4u (criticizing your own race/ethnicity/cultural group equals self hatred )

I have the feeling this is worse in the US than in most other western countries. But with discernment a lot of media (except perhaps the most extreme biased like Fox news and its exact opposite) have useful news and insights to offer. Perhaps drop the visual news and go with a good newspaper or two (with diff biases if there aren't any without.). I notice that the people who reject mainstream news and all newspapers share at least as biased news sources (usually alt right blogs or vids, but im generalizing here). This is of course rather ridicilous: the reason they reject mainstream media doesn't hold up then, which makes it harder to take these posters serious.

I agree about the whining and griping, but not about their opinions being unpopular or wanted is a reason for removal. I have the feeling you may worded that wrong and don't ment it exactly like that either (can't imagine so)? Although not literally feeling sorry for them, its a dubious reason. When they whine and gripe so much it ruins the platform it is

 

Damn, that's lengthy. Didn't notice; just thinking out loud