Planet Rugby Forum

Kiwias wrote:

Jay Cee Gee wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:
One knows that people have gone full-on loopy loo when a tweet about Elijah Cummings is described as racist.

The one where he described a fairly middle class area as rat infested, dangerous and filthy? I wonder why anyone would see that as racist.

The one where he said no humans would live there, knowing full well it is a largely black community. Nothing racist at all to see here, move on.

Leaving out the words "want to" is instructive.

Mick Mannock wrote:

Jay Cee Gee wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:
One knows that people have gone full-on loopy loo when a tweet about Elijah Cummings is described as racist.

The one where he described a fairly middle class area as rat infested, dangerous and filthy? I wonder why anyone would see that as racist.

Quite. Hell of a reach to describe that as racist.

He has a recurring habit of assuming that black areas are impoverished ghettos. He made similar statements about how John Lewis' district was crime infested etc when it's actually one of the nicer areas of Atlanta. It's his go to attack when a Black Dem criticises him, claim their district/city/state is a hellhole and they need to take care of their own backyard.

You can argue the statements in isolation aren't racist, but the assumptions behind them are pretty transparent.

Oh and what the orange shitgibbon said was racist as he only uses the word, infested when referring to black/brown people

Seneca of the Night wrote:

fatcat wrote:

Kiwias wrote:

Jay Cee Gee wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:
One knows that people have gone full-on loopy loo when a tweet about Elijah Cummings is described as racist.

The one where he described a fairly middle class area as rat infested, dangerous and filthy? I wonder why anyone would see that as racist.

The one where he said no humans would live there, knowing full well it is a largely black community. Nothing racist at all to see here, move on.

How is it racist?

It's that projection again. Trump's now got the formula down pat. He can deploy this tactic now forever.

He can, but it's not actually gonna help him much. It's playing to his base.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

fatcat wrote:

Kiwias wrote:

Jay Cee Gee wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:
One knows that people have gone full-on loopy loo when a tweet about Elijah Cummings is described as racist.

The one where he described a fairly middle class area as rat infested, dangerous and filthy? I wonder why anyone would see that as racist.

The one where he said no humans would live there, knowing full well it is a largely black community. Nothing racist at all to see here, move on.

How is it racist?

It's that projection again. Trump's now got the formula down pat. He can deploy this tactic now forever.

It's astonishing really. Rather than things that are not said being irrelevant they become the entire topic.

Hong Kong wrote:

Oh and what the orange shitgibbon said was racist as he only uses the word, infested when referring to black/brown people

Or when he talks about rats. Rat/rodent infested is a reasonably common phrase I would have thought.

Any chance he refers to the white redneck hillbilly heroin areas as infested hellholes? What do you think?

Trump right again

While Baltimore showed progress from last year, it still made the top 10 on Orkin's list of "Rattiest Cities."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/patch.com/ ... gain-orkin

Seneca of the Night wrote:

It's astonishing really. Rather than things that are not said being irrelevant they become the entire topic.

Yeah, and what becomes relevant is that white politicians are not allowed to criticise the performance of 'lawmakers of color'. And everyone sees that is now in the open. Finally.

Nope. The criticism is itself racist.

Santa wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

It's astonishing really. Rather than things that are not said being irrelevant they become the entire topic.

Yeah, and what becomes relevant is that white politicians are not allowed to criticise the performance of 'lawmakers of color'. And everyone sees that is now in the open. Finally.

Nope. The criticism is itself racist.

Nope, the criticism when based on a lazy, repeated assumption that black areas are crime riddled shit-holes is racist. If he criticized on anything approaching a fact, maybe.....

Seneca of the Night wrote:

It's astonishing really. Rather than things that are not said being irrelevant they become the entire topic.

Yeah, and what becomes relevant is that white politicians are not allowed to criticise the performance of 'lawmakers of color'. And everyone sees that is now in the open. Finally.

It's a very clever tactic actually.

He uses a broadly or even specifically factual claim, or at least a defensible one. Overstated it. Deploys it against a target about whom certain projections can be made and when the inevitable criticism comes based on that projection it reveals a different unspoken truth that relies on the projection. That is 4D.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Jay Cee Gee wrote:

Santa wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

It's astonishing really. Rather than things that are not said being irrelevant they become the entire topic.

Yeah, and what becomes relevant is that white politicians are not allowed to criticise the performance of 'lawmakers of color'. And everyone sees that is now in the open. Finally.

Nope. The criticism is itself racist.

Nope, the criticism when based on a lazy, repeated assumption that black areas are crime riddled shit-holes is racist. If he criticized on anything approaching a fact, maybe.....

So what you are saying is no black areas are crime riddled shit holes.

Highest murder rate of the large US cities. Top 10 rattiest cities. And apparently it's not a crime ridden rat infested shithole.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.baltim ... utType=amp

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Santa wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

It's astonishing really. Rather than things that are not said being irrelevant they become the entire topic.

Yeah, and what becomes relevant is that white politicians are not allowed to criticise the performance of 'lawmakers of color'. And everyone sees that is now in the open. Finally.

It's a very clever tactic actually.

He uses a broadly or even specifically factual claim, or at least a defensible one. Overstated it. Deploys it against a target about whom certain projections can be made and when the inevitable criticism comes based on that projection it reveals a different unspoken truth that relies on the projection. That is 4D.

The problem / genius with all these things that he is doing is this: there is no agreed definition of what constitutes racism.

Indeed. And the definition that prevails amongst the projectionists is so manifestly stupid that it makes leaves them open to this kind of manipulation.

What a fascinating insight into the mindset and thought processes of Trump's base. Thanks.

Kiwias wrote:What a fascinating insight into the mindset and thought processes of Trump's base. Thanks.

How was it racist?

fatcat wrote:

Kiwias wrote:What a fascinating insight into the mindset and thought processes of Trump's base. Thanks.

How was it racist?

As I said, thanks.

Kiwias wrote:

fatcat wrote:

Kiwias wrote:What a fascinating insight into the mindset and thought processes of Trump's base. Thanks.

How was it racist?

As I said, thanks.

So now you agree it wasn't. You're welcome; happy to have helped.

fatcat wrote:

Kiwias wrote:

fatcat wrote:

Kiwias wrote:What a fascinating insight into the mindset and thought processes of Trump's base. Thanks.

How was it racist?

As I said, thanks.

So now you agree it wasn't. You're welcome; happy to have helped.

Not even close to what I said but carry on defending him anyway.

Hong Kong wrote:

Oh and what the orange shitgibbon said was racist as he only uses the word, infested when referring to black/brown people

Stop f**king up the margins

Kiwias wrote:

fatcat wrote:

Kiwias wrote:

fatcat wrote:

Kiwias wrote:What a fascinating insight into the mindset and thought processes of Trump's base. Thanks.

How was it racist?

As I said, thanks.

So now you agree it wasn't. You're welcome; happy to have helped.

Not even close to what I said but carry on defending him anyway.

And you might care to explain why it was racist.

Kiwias wrote:

fatcat wrote:

Kiwias wrote:

fatcat wrote:

Kiwias wrote:What a fascinating insight into the mindset and thought processes of Trump's base. Thanks.

How was it racist?

As I said, thanks.

So now you agree it wasn't. You're welcome; happy to have helped.

Not even close to what I said but carry on defending him anyway.

I haven't defended him. I asked a simple question - how was it racist? Which you choose not to answer. No problem.

Mick Mannock wrote:
And you might care to explain why it was racist.

If he could, he would.

Some new members of the choir have arrived. Have fun, kiddies.

Santa wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

It's astonishing really. Rather than things that are not said being irrelevant they become the entire topic.

Yeah, and what becomes relevant is that white politicians are not allowed to criticise the performance of 'lawmakers of color'. And everyone sees that is now in the open. Finally.

It's a very clever tactic actually.

He uses a broadly or even specifically factual claim, or at least a defensible one. Overstated it. Deploys it against a target about whom certain projections can be made and when the inevitable criticism comes based on that projection it reveals a different unspoken truth that relies on the projection. That is 4D.

You have described a racist dog whistle, basically

Seneca of the Night wrote: Not a very good one if the only people who can hear the whistle are Democrats, and not racists..

You're deluded if you think that's true.

Seneca of the Night wrote:
So what you are saying is no black areas are crime riddled shit holes.

Well that's an interesting rhetorical tactic.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Jay Cee Gee wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote: Not a very good one if the only people who can hear the whistle are Democrats, and not racists..

You're deluded if you think that's true.

Racists don't think it's racist. It doesn't help that those that think it's racist won't tell us exactly why it's racist, but that's where we are I guess.

I've pretty clearly stated it. The fact that a guy repeatedly incorrectly assumes that areas where black people are crime and vermin infested ghettos and/or keeps deliberately repeating the lie is racist.

Now, you can once again repeat the 'There's no definition of racism' line.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Jay Cee Gee wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:
So what you are saying is no black areas are crime riddled shit holes.

Well that's an interesting rhetorical tactic.

It's very difficult to work out what your angle is on this thread.

Ok.

“I’m not racist but....”

Racist don’t think they are racist, I agre with you there Sen

Seneca of the Night wrote:Incidentally, if there is a 'line of racism' that is being laid down in fairly concrete terms, this review in Nature magazine just last week shows where it kind of is:

Evans zooms in on two focal points of racial stereotypes: sport and intelligence. His section on the success of Kenyan marathon runners in global contests is brilliant: it demolishes the idea of genetic explanations for any region’s sporting achievements. Some have speculated that Kenyans might have, on average, longer, thinner legs than other people, or differences in heart and muscle function. Evans notes, however, that we don’t make such generalizations about white British athletes when they do disproportionately well in global athletics. Such claims for athletic prowess are lazy biological essentialism, heavily doped with racism.

How many posters on here can claim to be within that scientific line? If you think that high-country tribesmen from Kenya might have genetic / biological advantages in distance running events you are a racist. That is the stance of one of the leading scientific journals.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02244-w

It's a very odd box they're trying to paint everyone into.

Youre not allowed to emphasise difference because that suggests differential capability, and therefore hierarchy, which is racist.

You're not allowed to emphasise sameness because that elides difference (which you're not allowed to acknowledge) and is predicated on a universalised white man baseline, which is racist.

You're not allowed to comment on poc unless you are a poc because to do so is to reiterate historical power relations, which is racist.

You're not allowed to not comment on poc because that marginalises marginalised communities, which is racist.

Given all that there is nowhere to go. People note this and say fudge it all, I don't care anymore.

Jay Cee Gee wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:

Jay Cee Gee wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:
One knows that people have gone full-on loopy loo when a tweet about Elijah Cummings is described as racist.

The one where he described a fairly middle class area as rat infested, dangerous and filthy? I wonder why anyone would see that as racist.

Quite. Hell of a reach to describe that as racist.

He has a recurring habit of assuming that black areas are impoverished ghettos. He made similar statements about how John Lewis' district was crime infested etc when it's actually one of the nicer areas of Atlanta. It's his go to attack when a Black Dem criticises him, claim their district/city/state is a hellhole and they need to take care of their own backyard.

You can argue the statements in isolation aren't racist, but the assumptions behind them are pretty transparent.

It covers most of the city of Atlanta.

Seneca of the Night wrote:https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/ ... ar-AAEWOe0

She’s confused. Mueller has been pushed by Clinton centrists and Russia hawks (including quite a few NeverTrump republicans). Progressives mostly want him impeached for other reasons.

BokJock wrote:“I’m not racist but....”

Racist don’t think they are racist, I agre with you there Sen

"3.6 roentgen, not great, not terrible"

Seneca of the Night wrote:Incidentally, if there is a 'line of racism' that is being laid down in fairly concrete terms, this review in Nature magazine just last week shows where it kind of is:

Evans zooms in on two focal points of racial stereotypes: sport and intelligence. His section on the success of Kenyan marathon runners in global contests is brilliant: it demolishes the idea of genetic explanations for any region’s sporting achievements. Some have speculated that Kenyans might have, on average, longer, thinner legs than other people, or differences in heart and muscle function. Evans notes, however, that we don’t make such generalizations about white British athletes when they do disproportionately well in global athletics. Such claims for athletic prowess are lazy biological essentialism, heavily doped with racism.

How many posters on here can claim to be within that scientific line? If you think that high-country tribesmen from Kenya might have genetic / biological advantages in distance running events you are a racist. That is the stance of one of the leading scientific journals.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02244-w

Er...no it is not. That's some lazy thinking from you..

Was it racist when Bernie Sanders likened Elijah Cummings district to a third world country?

zt1903 wrote:Was it racist when Bernie Sanders likened Elijah Cummings district to a third world country?

Not sure, what did the tweet say?

Seneca of the Night wrote:All the necessary leaps from that to racism are in your head. And he knows it.

Yeah, you're giving him a lot more credit than he's earned on that. I don't think it's some meta strategy for him, I think it's "Old man yells at cloud" behavior and his tendencies to view 'the blacks' as an amorphous entity who live in rat infested squalor is genuinely how he thinks.

zt1903 wrote:Was it racist when Bernie Sanders likened Elijah Cummings district to a third world country?

No because the implication was different. Bernie was suggesting a call to arms to end poverty across the whole of the US, while Trump was saying that POC aren't welcome in his US. Something like that I think.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Jay Cee Gee wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:All the necessary leaps from that to racism are in your head. And he knows it.

Yeah, you're giving him a lot more credit than he's earned on that. I don't think it's some meta strategy for him, I think it's "Old man yells at cloud" behavior and his tendencies to view 'the blacks' as an amorphous entity who live in rat infested squalor is genuinely how he thinks.

Well we are going to have to agree to disagree on that as its your take on his mind and that's not something we can argue about. I think it's a completely ridiculous view, but there you go.

Just a random coincidence that Fox happened to screen a bit on Cummings that showed the poorer parts of his district immediately before Trump's tweet? So what's more likely?

1 - The Fox News article was co-ordinated with Trump as part of a strategy; or
2 - Trump saw the article and blurted out his tweet.

Every single one of these Trump is a racist posts begs the question. So when asked to demonstrate the claim there is either a resounding silence or some circular stupidity.

I'm starting to think there's something to this leftism is a mental illness thing. This kind of epistemological slippage appears time and again from the usual tosspots. In allegations of racism. In allegations of sexual assault. In ignoring the presumption if innocence. In the collusion delusion.

Bowens is best lefty on here by quite a margin. The rest if you are a collective disgrace to your education. And the sad thing is most of your are unable to step back and ask yourselves why you keep being wrong. It doesn't even occur to you to do that. So you just plod on and on.