Politics of the Free - It’s because Democrats, stupid. - The Bear and Badger

JonB

Yossarian wrote:

Perhaps he has allowed racists who otherwise would have kept their racism to themselves to express their racism again?

Yet no one on the extreme right was able to do that in the last 30+ years? It's not like there's been an absence of contenders over there. Must be his charisma.

Yossarian

Nobody was able to do it because these voices were excluded from and condemned by the mainstream. Trump has managed to worm his way in and now top-down condemnation has been compromised.

Yossarian

FWIW, I doubt Trump is any more racist than your average Republican, he's just too stupid and reactionary to know to condemn the hardcore racists, which helps bring the moderate (for want of a better term) racists out of the woodwork.

JonB

Yossarian wrote:

Nobody was able to do it because these voices were excluded from and condemned by the mainstream. Trump has managed to worm his way in and now top-down condemnation has been compromised.

This is simply not true. There's been a gradual growth in acceptance/prominence of more extreme right views for the last decade or more, and a lot of it has directly appealed to people who are struggling financially or worried about the economic future of the country by condemning outsourcing, mass immigration, loss of work ethic etc. all wrapped in a nationalist discourse.

Yossarian

There may have been a growth, but these ideas have very much remained on the fringes until now. I'm also willing to bet that the gradual growth was far less gradual post-Trump.

Diluted Dante

Yossarian wrote:

There may have been a growth, but these ideas have very much remained on the fringes until now. I'm also willing to bet that the gradual growth was far less gradual post-Trump.

Rise of UKIP.

Yossarian

UKIP were always careful to repudiate overt racism, they sacked people who expressed racist views on a weekly basis. I don't consider this equivalent.

cockbeard

Yossarian wrote:

FWIW, I doubt Trump is any more racist than your average Republican, he's just too stupid and reactionary to know to condemn the hardcore racists, which helps bring the moderate (for want of a better term) racists out of the woodwork.

Neither stupid nor reactionary (imo, in this context, definitly stupid in other ways), he's a salesman, he could give two shits who buys his crap as long as it's selling

Kow

Nah, he may be some kind of salesman but he's a dumb fucking politician.

Edit: as you said

Kow

Guess we learned you can't run a country as if it was a business and it's leader was a CEO.

monkey

Yossarian wrote:

UKIP were always careful to repudiate overt racism, they sacked people who expressed racist views on a weekly basis. I don't consider this equivalent.

UKIP have always been nudge nudge wink wink about racism. Saying overtly racist things was out, saying things that implied unexpressed racist beliefs was fine, as long as there was deniability. Just because it's more subtle than Trump (what isn't?) doesn't mean they're not related.

Yossarian

I'm not saying that they're unrelated, I'm saying they aren't equivalent. UKIP for all their dog-whistling do at least pay lip service to the idea that overt racism is beyond the pale, which helps keep this stuff out of public debate. Trump being repeatedly, overtly racist with nothing to stop him blows this wide open.

dynamiteReady

Yossarian wrote:

According to the evidence collected in this article (there may well be contradictory stuff out there for all I know), there is no correlation between rises in racism and times of economic hardship or political instability, at least in the US. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/16/16153616/trumps-idea-that-jobs-will-solve-racism-is-just-wrong

I think we're talking more about fascist movements, than just racism.
Slavery is a product of racism, and that developed in a time of relative prosperity.

This may sound like a dumb question though...

Can you have fascism without racism?
And... Would it help to define Muslim extremists as fascists?

Would that help to frame the extremists as... Well, extremists, and not Muslims?
Like, the Nazi's were essential Christian fascists, right?

Kow

Rascists.

mistercrayon

Yossarian wrote:

I'm not saying that they're unrelated, I'm saying they aren't equivalent. UKIP for all their dog-whistling do at least pay lip service to the idea that overt racism is beyond the pale, which helps keep this stuff out of public debate. Trump being repeatedly, overtly racist with nothing to stop him blows this wide open.

I'm not convinced when the leader of a party complains that he can't hear english in a train journey can be given the generous label as being mere dogwhistling.

Nor can one say the same when there's a poster with brown people and the words "breaking point".

Yossarian

Fair enough, but it still stops short of Trump.

JonB

Yossarian wrote:

There may have been a growth, but these ideas have very much remained on the fringes until now. I'm also willing to bet that the gradual growth was far less gradual post-Trump.

I also doubt Trump would have gone for it if it was such a fringe sentiment. The Tea Party had already been pretty big, and Fox have shown there's an appetite for more extreme views for some time. Obviously there's going to be a difference when someone actually gets in power, but, to return to the point, this was still the result of a gradual shift to the right coinciding with years of worsening economic conditions for the majority.

JonB

I mean, the logic there is that if Trump goes then the racism dies down again. I think that's a very dangerous position to take.

Yossarian

It's not only Trump, that's for sure. But I would also argue that it's dangerous to presume that the sole cause is the economic situation and that if that improves but there is still overtly racist rhetoric in the public sphere that the problem will go away.

Yossarian

I'm not saying that this is your position, by the way.

JonB

Edit: OK. Had just written something to that effect.

I_R

dynamiteReady wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

According to the evidence collected in this article (there may well be contradictory stuff out there for all I know), there is no correlation between rises in racism and times of economic hardship or political instability, at least in the US. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/16/16153616/trumps-idea-that-jobs-will-solve-racism-is-just-wrong

I think we're talking more about fascist movements, than just racism. Slavery is a product of racism, and that developed in a time of relative prosperity. This may sound like a dumb question though... Can you have fascism without racism? And... Would it help to define Muslim extremists as fascists? Would that help to frame the extremists as... Well, extremists, and not Muslims? Like, the Nazi's were essential Christian fascists, right?

You can have fascism without racism being the driving force, Franco used North African soldiers in his army. Racism wasn't that central in Italy either. You don't have to look hard to work out that these sort of people are probably racists anyway though, it's almost a given in 1930's Europe, people are more likely to be racist than they are now, maybe just not as malevolently as they were in Central Europe.

The Nazis weren't particularly Christian, church attendance wasn't expected from party members. They really did dabble in a lot of occult and pagan nonsense.

LarryDavid

I've said it before and I'll say it again - there's one simple way to solve the problems we face at the moment, the rising tide of white supremacy on one hand and the equally troubling threat of Islamic extremism on the other. And it ties in to another problem: the ever growing problem of an aging population.

In a word: old folks.

We take the old duffers who are presently clogging up the nation's hospitals and care homes and we weaponise them. Simples. Now it may sound radical, unworkable even but picture it - your Nan has dementia, she's going to die anyway, why not have her take out some Jihadists and fascists on the way out?

Get those grannies fully togged out in the latest robotic exo-skeletons and full hi-tech military hardware. You love your Nan, obviously. I'm sure she's great, but how much greater would she be with a minigun on one arm and a grenade launcher strapped to the other?

They've already won one War, and to my mind they can do it again! It gives them meaning in their lives and it saves us wasting the best of our generation. It's a win-win! Quite why our leaders haven't seen what's staring them right in the face is beyond me, but regardless - the answer is there and the answer is an army of murderous Robo-Nans - geriatric killing machines that can clense the planet of the filth we've accumulated.

Yossarian

One problem with your plan, LD: a not-insignificant number of old people are quite racist. What if we tool them up and send them off but they decide to make common cause with the racists?

monkey

Yossarian wrote:

I'm not saying that they're unrelated, I'm saying they aren't equivalent. UKIP for all their dog-whistling do at least pay lip service to the idea that overt racism is beyond the pale, which helps keep this stuff out of public debate. Trump being repeatedly, overtly racist with nothing to stop him blows this wide open.

I think they are broadly equivalent though, it's just cultural differences in the tone they say these things in and how directly they talk about race.

Theresa May didn't need to say much to get all the racists on board. Just enough for them to know that she's on their side and she's going to sort out all the immigrants. Trump isn't capable of such subtlety and it wouldn't work in that country either.

Yossarian

It worked in that country for years, the southern strategy has been pulling in votes for republicans for decades.

And May for all of her stuff will still condemn overt racism, that sort of language is still taboo here. It isn't in the states any more.

hunk

dynamiteReady wrote:

According to the evidence collected in this article (there may well be contradictory stuff out there for all I know), there is no correlation between rises in racism and times of economic hardship or political instability, at least in the US. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/16/16153616/trumps-idea-that-jobs-will-solve-racism-is-just-wrong

I think we're talking more about fascist movements, than just racism. Slavery is a product of racism, and that developed in a time of relative prosperity. This may sound like a dumb question though... Can you have fascism without racism? And... Would it help to define Muslim extremists as fascists? Would that help to frame the extremists as... Well, extremists, and not Muslims? Like, the Nazi's were essential Christian fascists, right?

Good point and yes you can.
Although nazi's were never really infatuated with Chistianity, RC or protestant.

With fascism there always has to be a dominant 'strong' nationalistic group opressing the opposition, what they perceive to be a weak/meek group of outsiders? It doesn't even have to be an ethnic distinction, although that's the easiest way to single out a group. There has to be a them vs us dynamic otherwise the social aspect isn't there.

Fascism believe in a militarised state where every civilian is a fighter. Same can be said for Isis so you're not far off. Isis is/was obsessed with religion, Nazi's and Italian fascists weren't. To them national and race identity were key.

dynamiteReady

LarryDavid wrote:

I've said it before and I'll say it again - there's one simple way to solve the problems we face at the moment, the rising tide of white supremacy on one hand and the equally troubling threat of Islamic extremism on the other. And it ties in to another problem: the ever growing problem of an aging population. In a word: old folks. We take the old duffers who are presently clogging up the nation's hospitals and care homes and we weaponise them. Simples. Now it may sound radical, unworkable even but picture it - your Nan has dementia, she's going to die anyway, why not have her take out some Jihadists and fascists on the way out? Get those grannies fully togged out in the latest robotic exo-skeletons and full hi-tech military hardware. You love your Nan, obviously. I'm sure she's great, but how much greater would she be with a minigun on one arm and a grenade launcher strapped to the other? They've already won one War, and to my mind they can do it again! It gives them meaning in their lives and it saves us wasting the best of our generation. It's a win-win! Quite why our leaders haven't seen what's staring them right in the face is beyond me, but regardless - the answer is there and the answer is an army of murderous Robo-Nans - geriatric killing machines that can clense the planet of the filth we've accumulated.

"Cane? Let's step outside..."

Yossarian

Cane? Time to become able.

To kill.

hunk

Nan cyborgs.
Somebody pitch this to Elon Musk!

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories