First you misrepresent Scott Alexander’s post. Scott didn’t write that the media invented the narrative that Trump is racist.
You’re right, he didn’t. I don’t know who invented it—maybe it’s always been around. Scott merely said that the media promote it and make it popular. I’ll amend my post.
Trump himself came up with it because it was a good way to get attention. Trump purposefully spoke about how Mexico sends rapists to create that narrative. At least that’s the version if you think Trump has at least a tiny shred of awareness of the moves he makes.
I didn’t follow Trump’s campaign. If you’re talking about something other than Scott’s point 6 (What about Trump’s “drugs and crime” speech about Mexicans?) then I don’t know about it. 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?
I don’t remember anybody in the rationality community attacking Trump based on the theory that the main problem with him is that he’s racist.
Not the main problem, no. I had the impression that many denunciations of Trump included “racist” in the general litany of accusations, but now I’m not so sure. The only thing I could find in five minutes is that Scott Aaronson called Trump a “racist lunatic”, and that wasn’t even in his main post on Trump, but as an aside. So yes, you’re right about this.
On the other hand describing interaction of Trump with the mob isn’t profitable.
I was thinking less about concrete past actions like that, and more about the character traits Scott listed that I quoted: “incompetent thin-skinned ignorant boorish fraudulent omnihypocritical demagogue”. Most of these seem just fine as attack narratives for the media. Maybe they just didn’t catch on, or the “market” tended towards a single simple narrative dominating.
the characterization of Trump’s ghostwriter who spend 1 1⁄2 years with him provides valuable information about his character
That sounds valuable, at least if we can be certain that he’s speaking up due to personal convictions and has no hidden interests or biases. I’ve now read the New Yorker article about him. (Like I said, I tried not to follow the US election cycle.)
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.
You’re right, he didn’t. I don’t know who invented it—maybe it’s always been around. Scott merely said that the media promote it and make it popular. I’ll amend my post.
I didn’t follow Trump’s campaign. If you’re talking about something other than Scott’s point 6 (What about Trump’s “drugs and crime” speech about Mexicans?) then I don’t know about it. 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?
Not the main problem, no. I had the impression that many denunciations of Trump included “racist” in the general litany of accusations, but now I’m not so sure. The only thing I could find in five minutes is that Scott Aaronson called Trump a “racist lunatic”, and that wasn’t even in his main post on Trump, but as an aside. So yes, you’re right about this.
I was thinking less about concrete past actions like that, and more about the character traits Scott listed that I quoted: “incompetent thin-skinned ignorant boorish fraudulent omnihypocritical demagogue”. Most of these seem just fine as attack narratives for the media. Maybe they just didn’t catch on, or the “market” tended towards a single simple narrative dominating.
That sounds valuable, at least if we can be certain that he’s speaking up due to personal convictions and has no hidden interests or biases. I’ve now read the New Yorker article about him. (Like I said, I tried not to follow the US election cycle.)
Thanks for correcting me about the above.
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.