- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Lol, amazing how emotional people can get over literally nothing. Something as simple as this young lady not using precise language to convey her thought transpired into you bashing me to make yourself feel better. I don't know what this spell is I have over people, but dang it's some powerful stuff.
Well, I am not saying you have to apologize for it. I just think if we are going to talk about Trump being racist while reading an article about white supremacy we might want to clear up the distinctions between each term. And in doing so, I thought to point out why I was bringing up the distinctions between each term.
CLEARLY she meant that generally she does not care about skin color...then she followed up mentioning a specific and rare instance where she does care about skin color and its regarding who she likes.
That's like saying "I like pie. I do not like cherry pie, but other than that, I love pie". Is it a contradiction? Yes, and using the law of contradiction you can make an inference as to what this person is REALLY saying. If you READ between the text and apply logic you can pull out an easy to interpret message.
1. They generally enjoy pie.
2. There is an exception to this rule.
3. That exception is cherry pie.
Therefore the author is REALLY saying: "I don't like cherry pie, but other than that I enjoy pies" or "I like non-cherry pies"
Reading between her text she is clearly saying
1. I generally don't care for color
2. There is an exception to the rule
3. When it comes to matters of who I love I prefer black men.
4. Other than that I don't care for color.
You are taking one thing out of context and ignoring the entire message that is being conveyed.
It was an inference I made based on her saying she loves black men...I am confident in assuming in saying she loves black men in terms of dating and not she loves black men to look at, or she loves black men to go fishing with, or she loves black men to play D&D with.
And even still she never claimed to care about skin color...she still only stated that she does care about skin color in terms of who she "loves" beyond that she does not care about skin color. You are still disputing against something she never said and ignoring that the "other than that" was meant to denote an exception to the rule.
Well, you posted an article about whether or not Trump is a white supremacist and not about whether or not Trump is racist. The words racist, supremacist, and nationalist are not all synonymous.
All white supremacists are racist, but not all racists are white supremacists. Nationalism is a whole other thing. White Nationalists (those believe in forming a white national identity) are different from American Nationalists (those believing in forming an American national identity). Nationalism is only racism when those nationalists seek to form a national identity around their race because they view other races to be inferior or their own race to be superior. White nationalists and Black nationalists sometimes are racist against other races, but raciam and racial nationalism are not mutually exclusive.
But American nationalism is not about a racial identity, its about an American identity. This could include members of all races, ethnicities, and skin colors.
Trump is definitely a nationalist, definitely xenophobic, seemingly racist against those with the racial make-up of Mesoamericans, seemingly anti-Hispanic, and could be an undercover white supremacist. I don't know if he thinks one race is superior or inferior, but I can see why Hispanic (not a race) people would think he has something against them.
I, as a black man, have never felt threatened by Trump or racially attacked.