Scott apparently couldn’t find anything Trump said during his campaign that would make him out to be clearly racist. Do you think he’s just wrong about this?
There are two separate questions:
(1) Does Trump engage say things in public about that violate PC norms.
(2) Is Trump someone who acts in a way that’s harmful to minorities because he dislikes majorities.
I think Scott is correct in arguing that Trump likely isn’t generally engaging in more discriminatory actions against minorities then the average Republican.
That doesn’t change the fact that he’s willing to publically say things that are generally understood as signals for racism. Questioning whether Obama was born in the US, saying that Mexico sends rapists and calling for a ban on Mexican immigration are all rhetorical moves that are out of the Overton window in a way that signals racism.
Most of these seem just fine as attack narratives for the media.
There are certainly media articles written about how Trump is incompetent but the average media case doesn’t provide a sophisticated argument for the case it’s making.
A mainstream newspaper has to dumb down the argument that it makes.
I’m not sure that’s the right question. How about this: Do you think the fact he does this is evidence that he and others working with him are likely to do things that are significantly harmful, once actually in power? Or this: Do you think the fact that a president-elect does this has any harmful effect on other people’s behaviour?
I don’t know the answer to either question, but it seems like there are pretty plausible arguments for answering “yes” to both.
There are two separate questions: (1) Does Trump engage say things in public about that violate PC norms. (2) Is Trump someone who acts in a way that’s harmful to minorities because he dislikes majorities.
I think Scott is correct in arguing that Trump likely isn’t generally engaging in more discriminatory actions against minorities then the average Republican. That doesn’t change the fact that he’s willing to publically say things that are generally understood as signals for racism. Questioning whether Obama was born in the US, saying that Mexico sends rapists and calling for a ban on Mexican immigration are all rhetorical moves that are out of the Overton window in a way that signals racism.
There are certainly media articles written about how Trump is incompetent but the average media case doesn’t provide a sophisticated argument for the case it’s making. A mainstream newspaper has to dumb down the argument that it makes.
Do you think the fact he does this is significantly harmful?
I’m not sure that’s the right question. How about this: Do you think the fact he does this is evidence that he and others working with him are likely to do things that are significantly harmful, once actually in power? Or this: Do you think the fact that a president-elect does this has any harmful effect on other people’s behaviour?
I don’t know the answer to either question, but it seems like there are pretty plausible arguments for answering “yes” to both.
That was, in fact, what I meant.
I think it’s produces a lot of distracting discussions but I don’t think it’s a major deal.