‹ First  < 7 8 9 10 > 
 
   
 

Trump Derangement Syndrome and the 2020 Election

 
no_profundia
 
Avatar
 
 
no_profundia
Total Posts:  548
Joined  14-07-2016
 
 
 
12 September 2019 18:20
 

Analytic, I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions. Your answers and the subsequent discussion have clarified things for me a bit. As much clarity as is possible in relation to such topics anyway. I am going to have to take the night off responding. I am starting school again on Monday and to reduce my stress I am going to try to get logged into the website for my classes, make sure my access codes work for my books, etc. And I also have some work I brought home with me I need to finish.

I am enjoying the discussion and fully intend to resume it tomorrow night or this weekend.

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1069
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
12 September 2019 18:34
 

no_profundia,

I am enjoying it too.  Good luck getting ready for school, and see you when you post.  There is no kind of rush…

[ Edited: 12 September 2019 18:41 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6538
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
13 September 2019 07:15
 

We may be discussing Universal Derangement Syndrome. This is off topic but might get Mr. Shears to reappear.

Mr. Shears:

The militia—and this was clearly understood in the 18th century—are the whole adult male population of military age, who can be called up at need.  In normal times, they are ordinary farmers and merchants and tradesmen and teachers, etc. just going about their lives.  Not much need of an external force to keep them honest, as they are not much threat to anyone as long as their are living their ordinary lives and going about their own ends.  Their own virtue, instilled into them by parents, teachers, preachers, etc. etc. provided the moral foundation for their liberty and their limited government.
Sadly, the corrupted state of our public morality and our education system (which has left the citizenry of this country shockingly, appallingly, indeed stupefyingly ignorant), has edged us close to that end Ben Franklin foresaw, when we would not longer be capable of self government.

That is a nicely crafted pair of paragraphs though there are a couple of things that could be expanded on. You mention ordinary people leading ordinary lives with virtue instilled by their community. What is the point or means of departure from that ordinariness and why does it lead to a loss of virtue? If the militia comes from a pool of virtuous and ordinary folk, what segment of society, from barbers to bankers, does not come from the same pool? How does one fall from ordinariness and become the reason we need an armed militia?

Why be selective in using the term governance? Teachers and preachers are governed by schools and churches. Church hierarchies are not limited governments granting liberty to the ordinary preacher to preach as he sees fittin’. All that is limited is the scope of what you are prepared to call governance. At what threshold does governance need to be limited?

We can long for the idyllic world of ordinariness and locally instilled virtue but once achieved, it is always temporary. Success and stability breeds the un-ordinary folk with aspirations to weed out the hypocrisy and blind-spots of the local governance. The blind-spots are usually due to ignorance or misleading mythologies. Limiting governance to some local lads with rifles is only protecting local ignorance from challenge.

Modern groups like the Michigan Militia do not follow the 18th century model. They are a gang of boys with guns fired up by the radio.
I’m not worried about them being honest. I’m worried about them being crazy.

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1069
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
13 September 2019 14:48
 

One expansion could be self-interest.  Virtue aside it’s rather implausible that a militia of citizens is going to create a government that tramples on its rights.  In this respect, the militia is a self-correcting means of national defense, if one is worried about the tyrannical misuse of government power through standing armies.

 
no_profundia
 
Avatar
 
 
no_profundia
Total Posts:  548
Joined  14-07-2016
 
 
 
14 September 2019 18:16
 

Analytic, I am not going to be able to respond to everything from your recent posts and, unfortunately, I am not going to be able to spend as much time responding starting Monday since school is starting. This will probably be my last long comprehensive post in this thread. However, if there is something specific from one of your posts that I have not responded to that you were hoping I would, or an argument you think I ignored, let me know and I will try my best to offer my thoughts on it.

the prior they maintain: that any derogatory remark about a person of color is ipso facto evidence of a racist, and any racial-social disparity is ipso facto evidence of systemic racism

I did not really explain how I was using the term “prior” but I think we are using the term in different ways so let me clarify. I had the Bayesian sense in mind - the prior probability that we assign to a hypothesis as well as the probability we assign to a given observation if the hypothesis were true. When someone tries to determine if a particular statement from Trump is racist, or is evidence that he is racist, they already assign a prior probability to the statement “Trump is racist” and then try to determine what the probability is that Trump would make the statement if he were (or were not) racist. This is what I meant by a person’s priors.

I don’t think there is any scientific or fully objective way to determine what the correct prior probabilities should be when we are asking a question like “Is Trump racist?” Ideally, a Bayesian reasoner would take a look at all of Trump’s statements when trying to determine the probability that Trump would say X if he was or was not racist (should the person also look at the general population to determine what percentage of the population who make such statements are racist?). Statements like the one Trump made in the Black Church would not necessarily effect our estimate that he is (or is not) racist because we might suspect Trump would make those statements whether he was racist or not. Other statements Trump made insulting his white opponents’ intelligence should lower the probability that his insult of a person of color’s intelligence is evidence of racism. This is the point you are making. But do we know how much it should effect the probability or what the correct probability should be?

All of this requires a fairly sophisticated analysis and I don’t think it is rational for people to engage in this kind of analysis. As a voter, I already know what I think about Trump. Spending lots of time and mental energy trying to determine whether Trump is really racist is never going to yield anything more than a probability and even if I decided it was likely Trump was not racist it is not going to change my vote. If I already know how I am going to vote it is not rational for me to spend a bunch of time and energy trying to determine if there is “anything potentially redeeming in the man”, or combing through all of his statements to see how often he insults white people, just so I can walk around with a slightly more accurate picture of Trump in my head (and I can never really know for sure whether the information I gathered produced a more or less accurate picture).

This provides a different explanation for why a person might think the Maxine Waters statement is racist without having to make the implausible assumption that the person thinks any denigrating remark directed at a person of color is proof of racism. The explanation is: they think the probability of the observation (Trump’s statement) would be higher if the hypothesis (Trump is racist) were true than it would be if it were not true and they don’t bother gathering and running a statistical analysis on all the information they can find to determine how accurate the prior probabilities they are using are. Can we claim with certainty the probabilities they are using are wrong? Has anyone run a statistical analysis on all of Trump’s statements to determine whether being black makes Trump more likely to insult your intelligence? I hope not because it would be a colossal waste of time and it still wouldn’t tell us whether Trump was racist.

So, we have two hypotheses. The first hypothesis is: Person X believes the Maxine Waters statement is racist because they think any derogatory statement directed at a person of color is racist. The second hypothesis is: Person X thinks the Maxine Waters statement is racist because of the prior probabilities they are using in their Bayesian inference and because they don’t spend a lot of time trying to correct those prior estimates (and to be clear, very few people are consciously engaging in Bayesian analysis, but their brain still might be). I think we should prefer the second hypothesis for two reasons.

First, while we can’t peer directly into someone’s brain to determine whether they are operating with an a priori non-negotiable schema or if they are engaging in Bayesian reasoning I think as a simple matter of charity it is better to assume the latter. If someone is truly operating with a non-negotiable schema why even bother talking to them? You are essentially assuming before you even begin that the person is not rational and is not worth talking to. Second, I think the second hypothesis is likely to be closer to what the person would say about themselves and more consistent with their behavior. I bet lots of people who think the Maxine Waters statement was racist had no problem calling Ben Carson an idiot. So, we either have to make an additional assumption of cognitive dissonance or we can simply assume they never held the view you are attributing to them in the first place.

Believing Trump is a racist because of the birther thing is, I would say, itself the result of a defective prior, as though questioning the birth status of black Presidential candidate is done because he’s black and not because he’s a political nemesis with a non-US national as a father (Trump is, after all, Republican).  The birther conspiracy is idiotic; it is based on the worst kind of distortions of “evidence.”  But it’s not racist.  By the standard that it is, questioning the suitability of any black man for any position is racist, just because he’s black, regardless of the context of questioning—which is patently not the case.

A person who thinks the birther conspiracy is racist is not committed to a standard that assumes any questioning of the suitability of any black man for any position is racist. I think you are implicitly assuming that the following syllogism is running through people’s heads because it is (supposedly) the only way to reach the conclusion on the basis of the evidence:

1. Any questioning of the suitability of a black man for any office is racist.
2. People who believe in the birther conspiracy are questioning the suitability of a black man for office.
3. Therefore, people who believe in the birther conspiracy are racist.

But this is not the only chain of reasoning that could lead from the evidence given to the conclusion (and I think it is very unlikely this is the syllogism people are actually using when they conclude someone is racist on the basis of their belief in the birther conspiracy). Here is another syllogism leading to the same conclusion:

1. When people believe something negative about a person of color contrary to all evidence it is evidence of racism.
2. People who believe in the birther conpiracy believe something negative about a person of color that is contrary to all evidence.
3. Therefore, believing in the birther conspiracy is evidence of racism.

I am not claiming the premises in the latter syllogism are true. I am simply pointing to another chain of reasoning that could lead to the same conclusion (and I am certain it would be possible to come up with others). You might claim that the general premise of the second syllogism I offered is still evidence of “seeing racism everywhere” but I don’t think it is. All the first premise in the second syllogism needs to imply is: I would be more likely to observe Trump believing the birther conspiracy if he was racist than if he was not racist. The margin might be very slight. I might think there is a 51% chance I would observe him believing the birther conspiracy if he was racist and a 49% chance if he was not. Even with that slight margin the observation is still going to increase the probability I assign to the hypothesis that Trump is racist given his belief in the birther conspiracy.

So, that is all the first premise in the second syllogism implies: that I think it is more likely to observe someone believing something contrary to all evidence about a person of color given racism than without it. This assumption does not seem totally unreasonable to me and it does not require me to believe that anyone who believes something negative about a person of color contrary to evidence is racist (and it certainly does not commit me to the much stronger claim that anyone who believes anything negative about any person of color at any time is racist). If I assign a prior probability of 20% to the claim that person X is racist based on all the other things I know about them, and I observe that they believe in the birther conspiracy, that might raise the probability to 21% but I still find myself in a position where I believe with 79% confidence that the person is not racist.

This is essentially the point I have been making all along. Someone might believe in the second syllogism and if they assign a relatively high prior probability to the claim “Trump is racist” Trump’s belief in the birther conspiracy might tip the scales and convince them he is likely racist, but it would be totally unwarranted, and I think a gross exaggeration in most cases, to conclude from that that the person is someone who “sees racism everywhere”, even if we operationalize it the way you are doing. I think you are inferring too much and as a simple matter of charity it is better not to assume people are walking around with totally unreasonable beliefs about the world when there are other explanations available.

[ Edited: 14 September 2019 18:31 by no_profundia]
 
 
no_profundia
 
Avatar
 
 
no_profundia
Total Posts:  548
Joined  14-07-2016
 
 
 
14 September 2019 18:21
 

The article can be found here (it was used in one of my classes).

I will just say a couple of things about the article. First, I think it is necessary to distinguish between people who spend their life studying racial issues, and have a fully worked out theoretical position on the nature of race and its role in society and social cognition, from people who don’t spend lots of time studying racial issues but who still think the Maxine Waters or birther conspiracy is evidence of racism. The notion of a person walking around with an a priori non-negotiable schema is much more likely (I think) to be an accurate description of the former than the latter. While you say you did not have a specific prototype in mind for the 8% the examples you gave were all either professors or graduate students so they were all people who belong in the former group.

The second thing I want to say is, I still don’t think anything in that paper logically entails the belief that any derogatory comment directed at an African-American is ipso facto evidence of racism or the claim that any racial disparity is ipso facto evidence of current systemic racism. The authors of that paper might believe those things - I doubt they believe the first but they might believe the second - but their position does not logically entail it. I take the primary thesis of their paper to be: our social cognition is still determined by racism in ways that are currently invisible to us so sticking purely to the principle of free and unrestrained speech, and giving equal weight to everything expressed in the marketplace of ideas, is unlikely to lead to the racial reforms that are necessary.

Their argument about free speech is still somewhat unclear to me but what they say about racism structuring our social perception doesn’t seem that different to me from what Glenn Loury says in The Anatomy of Racial Inequality. Loury argues there is still a stigma attached to being black “an entrenched if inchoate persumption of inferiority, of intellectual incapacity, harbored by observing agents when they regard race-marked subjects” (70). Loury believes we can see evidence of this in discussions of public policy: “I am claiming that the meaning of a policy…is quite sensitive to the race of those affected: Veterans are acceptable beneficiaries but blacks violate meritocratic principles. I assert that public responses to a social malady - drug involvement, say - depend on the race of those suffering the problem: The youthful city-dwelling drug sellers elicit a punitive response, while the youthful suburban-dwelling drug buyers call forth a therapeutic one” (71).

Loury is careful not to call this stigma “racism” or “racial discrimination” - and he never claims that racial stigma accounts for all (or even most) of the racial disparities we see - so those are ways he may differ from the authors of your paper. However, his claim that there are unconscious meanings (stigmas) attached to racial markers that structure our social cognition does not seem that different to me from the claim that “racism is woven into the warp and woof of the way we see and organize the world.” Would you claim that Loury is also walking around with an a priori non-negotiable prior or do you see a major difference between these positions that I am missing?

This goes to what Thomas Sowell calls “Discrimination I” and “Discrimination II.”...

Sowell’s distinction here seems basically identical to the distinction Loury makes between racial stereotypes (Loury is not using the term stereotype in a pejorative sense) and racial stigma. If you haven’t read his book already I think you would like it. And I agree with your assessment of Sowell. He is a good applied economist who often makes excellent points but he carries a ridiculous caricature of liberals around in his head that I find quite tiresome. I intend to pick up his book on racial discrimination based on your description and give it a read.

Conclusion

I have not been able to respond to everything from your posts so I want to try to sum things up as best I can. Here is where I think our disagreement lies:

I don’t disagree that there is a movement on the left that is becoming hyper-aware of racism and is probably seeing racism in places where it does not exist. I don’t even necessarily disagree that there are some on the left who walk around with an a priori non-negotiable schema. I do disagree that this is the best way to characterize most of the people in the “woke left” - people who would agree that the Maxine Waters statement is racist and that systemic racism is largely responsible for racial disparities - because I don’t think it is accurate and I think it is uncharitable. We don’t know why people believe what they believe and I don’t think we should start by positing that a person believes something because they are irrationally wedded to some a priori schema even if we find we are unable to convince the person they are wrong based on what we consider good evidence.

I don’t think anyone knows to what degree systemic racism is responsible for present day racial disparities. In fact, I am not sure the question even makes sense because it assumes that we can divide possible causes up into completely independent variables and assign different pieces of the racial disparity pie to independent causes. I don’t think whatever variables we come up with are going to be truly independent but instead are going to influence each other in all sorts of ways. So, it just doesn’t make sense to say “Systemic racism accounts for 10% of today’s racial disparities, endogenous sub-cultural norms account for 40%, and individual choice accounts for 50%.”

If no one knows how much of a role systemic racism plays in racial disparities then I think it is premature to start accusing people who disagree with us of bias. To measure whether a line is curved we need something straight to compare it against. Since no one knows what the truth is here it is impossible to accurately measure deviation from the truth. Since we can’t use the truth as a measure, we use our own view, and we attempt to measure another person’s bias by measuring their divergence from our own view which we take as normative. We all tend to do this but we should be aware of it and try our best not to mischaracterize the views of other people by placing too much confidence in our own.

And to return to my jelly bean example and the value of collective rationality. Because information is widely dispersed there is no one who is going to be able to gather it all in a single place and summarize it (and even if they could some of the information is going to be lost when it is summarized which is why central planning doesn’t work very well). [As a sidenote: this is why I think we should take anecdotal evidence seriously and not simply dismiss it as imprecise or rely entirely on statistical summaries]. Our collective “guess” about systemic racism is likely going to be closer to the truth than the average individual’s guess. Actually, I am not stating that strongly enough. If I am understanding the mathematical theorem I mentioned correctly this is not just likely. It is guaranteed to be true.

If we take the average individual’s guess about how much systemic racism there is in society their error is going to be equal to the average error of the group but the group error is going to be equal to the average error of the group minus the diversity of the group. Mathematically, it is certain that the average individual’s guess is going to be off by more than the collective guess (except in the very unlikely case where every individual in the group makes exactly the same guess) and the difference is directly related to the diversity of the group. So, I think we should be happy that there is lots of diversity in the group. We should be happy that the authors of your paper exist, that there are people who are guessing there is a lot of systemic racism in society, even if they turn out to be wrong.

It has been good talking to you as always. Take care.

 
 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  490
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
14 September 2019 19:51
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 05 September 2019 08:33 AM

Trump Derangement Syndrome—i.e. the tendency to be equal parts inaccurate, apoplectic and hysterical over Donald Trump—emerged early in his campaign and blossomed at his election.  Although he said that black churches have inspired “a sense of charity and unity that binds us all together,” calling for a “civil rights agenda of our time”; although he said we must “work to ensure that all of our kids are treated equally” and seek to make life better “for young Americans in Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit and Ferguson”; although he said that “Mexican American citizens” have made great contributions to “our two countries” and that illegal immigration is a problem because it threatens legal, low wage workers, “especially African-American and Hispanic workers” for whom upward mobility should be a priority (emphasis added); in short, although he said all these things, outlets like Slate, Vox, HuffPost, and Salon declared, just in different ways, that Trump was “running on pure white supremacy” and was “an openly white supremacist nominee”; that “there’s no such thing as a good Trump voter”; that “Trump’s win is a reminder of the incredible, unbeatable power of racism”; and that “Trump’s win tells people of color they aren’t welcome in America.”  How can such a disconnect between what a candidate actually says and what a candidate purportedly represents persist?  What explains Trump Derangement Syndrome?

First, TDS requires selective emphasis.  The above named outlets focused only on the deplorable things he said during the campaign—things like the “grab’em by the pussy” and illegal immigrants are “bringing drugs,” “bringing crime” and “they are rapists” etc.—then they define him against those statements while selectively omitting the things he says contrary to the definition.  Thus Trump Derangement Syndrome has as its first step cherry-picking negative comments at the specific exclusion of the positive ones, or ones otherwise politically normal.  This cherry-picking is doubly suspect when one considers that mainstream outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post dutifully reported on most of the speeches in which the above statements were made—or if not them, then local media outlets did, outlets easily accessible to anyone following the campaign (as presumably the editors at Slate et. al. did).  In any case, the primary element of Trump Derangement Syndrome is cherry-picking in what can only be described as bad faith, a bad faith that excludes in advance any possibility of something positive about the man.  Not everyone who has the syndrome is guilty of this per se; some simply inherit it for having caught the syndrome.

Second, TDS is rooted in hate.  Because of this bad faith cherry picking; because of this willful misconstrual of Trump as a “white supremacist” or a “racist,” regardless of the intellectual honesty sacrificed to maintain it; because of this refusal to give the man, apriori, anything like fair shake based on the full gamut of what he actually says—for these reasons Trump Derangement Syndrome is an expression of hate, a hate that extends not just to Trump himself but to anyone who supports him.  “Hate” here means simply an apriori disposition to see nothing but negative, nothing worth redeeming, nothing favoring compromise or reconciliation.  It is, I think, the perfect analogue of the “love” that equally blinds and binds die-hard Trump supporters to Trump.  For them, nothing he says pricks the bubble of their derangement in favor of him, just as nothing he says will prick the derangement against him.  In my experience this dual tendency to “love” and “hate” underlies all politics, but it seems to me clearer now.  It seems to me amplified into its purest forms during Trump’s campaign, and his Presidency.  In any case, Trump Derangement Syndrome is driven by a politics of hate that refuses to see anything potentially redeeming in the man, much less his policies or his supporters, and its primary mechanism for maintaining the Derangement is cherry-picking only his deplorable and idiotic statements, at the specific exclusion of those not so (again, willful at the source; by inheritance among the infected).  Taken together hate and cherry-picking drive the roughly 8% of the population that either self-identify or can be accurately identified as “far left,” or “activist left,” or at the political level the “Justice Democrats” (the left’s version of the Tea Party).  Their outlets, as mentioned above, include journals like Slate, Vox, HuffPost, and Salon.

I have already defended the so-called “Trump supporter” against this politics of hate and its Derangement Syndrome here.  This time I want to shift the focus, from the man per se and his supporters to the dynamics of the upcoming election.  My thesis—which I leave open for discussion—is that if Trump Derangement Syndrome persists; if this 8% of the population comes to define the Democratic primary; if the meaning of the Democratic platform becomes as divorced from reality as Warren’s recent Ferguson Tweet; then what should be a 3-foot layup for a Democratic win will become a 50-50 three-point shot.  In other words, what in professional basketball should be a sure thing could end up going either way.  To this point, I maintain that that the middle voter that could go either way in any given election, depending on the candidate (Obama skunked Romney, for instance), is sick and tired of the politics of hate.  They are sick and tired seeing derangement and hysterical outrage rule politics, whether it is deranged support for Trump or deranged opposition against him.  And more specifically, the sense of fairness intrinsic to most people dispose these voters to side with someone—if they side with anyone—who is the target of unfair treatment—not unfair in a moral sense, exactly, but unfair in an obvious sense where the hysteria, derangement, and outrage is as disconnected from the reality as is the disconnect is between ‘Trump is running on pure white supremacy” versus what Trump actually said about race during the campaign.  That kind of disconnect cannot maintain itself in the face of facts—facts that are covered in the national and local non-ideological outlets—and my fear is that should the Democratic platform be high-jacked by TDS, this will create, against its intent, enough valance toward Trump to edge out the election, just as he edged it out in 2016.  I don’t think people caught up in Trump Derangement Syndrome appreciate how outright ridiculous it looks when one has access to—and reads—the broader coverage of what he actually says on any given issue, and therefore what he presumably stands for (if he stands for anything but his own aggrandizement, which is unlikely).  Anyway, the dangers of it infecting the 2020 election is the germ of a fear I leave open for discussion, no doubt subject to augmentation along the way…

I think you’re missing completely the real reasons people voted for Trump.  I came across this interesting study: https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/the-five-types-trump-voters.  I doubt many voted for him because he was unjustly accused of racism.  Some may have been attracted because they think whites are unjustly treated compared to blacks or other people of color - in other words, because they’re racist.  A large number voted against Clinton as she epitomized the elite, the moneyed interests.  Warren or Sanders could easily get the anti-elite voters.

As to Trump being a racist, I’m sorry, your claim that no racist would say e.g. black churches have inspired “a sense of charity and unity that binds us all together,” is just plain false, a racist politician would say that in trying to garner votes as he was clearly trying to do. Nor do statements like that exculpate him. 

Here’s another interesting datum: when he makes charges of racism, it’s generally against blacks, (from https://newrepublic.com/article/154743/donald-trumps-guide-racism) - playing to racist white victim-hood identity.  This isn’t cherry-picking.

If you’re one of those whites who perceive yourself as a victim of racism, I’m sorry.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7143
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
14 September 2019 20:07
 
lynmc - 14 September 2019 07:51 PM

A large number voted against Clinton as she epitomized the elite, the moneyed interests.

A demographic that also fits Trump very nicely, as he is precisely one of the elite, moneyed parties.

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1069
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
16 September 2019 09:13
 

It looks like I will have the last word here, at least for the time being.  Let me preface it by saying it’s been a pleasure discussing this with you.  Discussions like this are why I post here in the first place.  This one has helped me clarify my own views, even for myself.

(I)

You seem to be making inconsistent points in this part of your reply.  First you describe a “Bayesian sense” and suggest this is what people are doing when they judge Trump, then you seem to imply that it is irrational for people to fully “engage in this kind of analysis,” that as voters they already “know” what they “think about Trump.”  Then you go back to this Bayesian sense as a description of how people judge, without any expectation that they do it well.  As it happens, I agree with the second point (i.e. people already know what they think about Trump), and I think the way you describe the first point results in the both same point as the second and the broader point I have been making all along—that for those who believe “racist” any derogatory remark about a person of color is sufficient proof of that racism.

You describe this “Bayesian sense” in people’s reasoning as

“…the prior probability that we assign to a hypothesis as well as the probability we assign to a given observation if the hypothesis were true.”

Operationally for any given Trump critic this means

“…they think the probability of the observation (Trump’s statement) would be higher if the hypothesis (Trump is racist) were true than it would be if it were not true,” and they use this probability to gauge—absent more comprehensive considerations—how “accurate the prior probabilities they are using are.”

Using “belief” for “hypothesis” henceforth, these two points, taken together, mean one’s belief “Trump is a racist”—whatever its prior degree—will always be confirmed.  That is, it will always seem more likely that someone will make a derogatory remark about a person of color given racism than if they are not a racist, so any given prior that “Trump is a racist” will be supported.  Furthermore, under this kind of reasoning, any given derogatory statement about a person of color will sufficiently support the prior belief, hence the circularity of the reasoning: one starts with a prior belief (“racist”) based on derogatory remarks about people of color, isolated from other derogatory remarks; then, in assessing new observations in light of the belief being true, any given derogatory statement against a person of color is more likely than if not a racist; therefore the prior belief is upheld.  And so forth.  This is not Bayesian reasoning, but it is politically motivated reasoning, and the systematic bias in the polling data shows this is what most people are in fact doing when they decide whether Trump is or is not a racist. 

A true Bayesian inference about Trump’s racism would be done in two ways, both quite simple and readily intuitive.  First, for a single belief (“Trump is a racist”) it would look something like this.  Say there is a 1 in 10 chance that Trump is a racist.  That’s a reasonable prior that any given white person is a racist, and Trump is white (P(B)).  Now say that Trump as a racist would insult a person of color some percentage of the time—to start, say it’s 80%.  That’s the probability of observing any given insult, given that he’s a racist (P(O|B)).  Now say that Trump’s insults people so often that he’s insulting people the same percentage of the time—again, 80%.  That’s the probability of seeing an insult against anyone, regardless of the question of racism (P(O)).  Under these estimations—P(B), P (O|B) and P(O)—the chance that Trump is a racist doesn’t change; it remains 10%.  Of course one can play with different estimates for both the insults against persons of color and the insults against people generally, but for any given prior, to improve the chances that “Trump is a racist” means, necessarily, that he insults people of color more frequently than he insults people in general.  Given what’s observable, this doesn’t seem to be the case, but in any case, that aside, people are clearly not doing this kind of reasoning, even automatically and intuitively (in non-political judgement, we do this all the time).  Instead, as the data shows, they are doing what’s described above: starting with a prior belief that’s he is racist and seeing confirmatory evidence in a given observation, given that that belief is true.

The second kind of Bayesian inference is not quite as direct, but it just as intuitive.  On the one hand, one could hypothesize that “Trump is a bigot”—i.e. someone who insults anyone who disagrees with him, including people of color.  On the other hand, one could say “Trump is a racist”—i.e. someone who insults people of color because they are people of color, irrespective of criticism.  To compare these two beliefs, one would look at their respective priors and the probability of bigots responding negatively to criticism, as well as the probability of racists denigrating people of color, irrespective of criticism; then one would weigh these two beliefs in a ratio, deciding in the direction of this ratio (greater than 1 indicates the numerator, less than 1 indicates the denominator).  Given what we know about the frequency of bigots relative to racists (bigots are more common than racists), and in light of their respective willingness to “reveal their spots,” as it were (insults from bigots are relatively common, whereas racists tend to conceal their racism), by this test too it seems unlikely that Trump is a racist and not a bigot.  But in any case, that aside again, people aren’t doing this kind of reasoning either.  Instead, per what you note above, they already know Trump is a “racist” or “a bigot,” then they weigh his statements in light of their belief being true, as confirmation that their belief is reliable.  And as already noted, in the case of the prior ‘he is a racist,’ this results in any derogatory statement about a person of color being sufficient to confirm racism, even as the same is the basis for the prior in the first place (the same would apply to ‘Trump is a bigot,’ where any given denigration of someone who criticizes him confirms his bigotry, even as the same is the basis for the prior in the first place).

Put summarily, what’s missing from true Bayesian reasoning in your “Bayesian sense” is that the former is an attempt to go from P(O|B) to P(B|O) using the prior and all the other information one has, or can estimate, whereas the latter is simply an ‘update’ of a prior using P(O|B), given the truth of the prior itself.  To put it in technical terms, your “Bayesian sense” (exemplified in the first case above) omits the role of the probability of the observation itself—or P(O)—provided by the denominator in Bayes Theorem and bases belief instead solely on the numerator, with its prior P(B) and its estimation of P(O|B).  Another way to put it is that even in automatic and intuitive Bayesian reasoning, one “normalizes the observation,” and your Bayesian reasoners are failing to do that.

“I think you are inferring too much and as a simple matter of charity it is better not to assume people are walking around with totally unreasonable beliefs about the world when there are other explanations available.”

But no_profundia, I think the best available explanation is people as a rule do walk around with unreasoned beliefs about the world and use motivated reasoning to confirm them, not true Bayesian reasoning to question them.  In this discussion I have pointed to two of those unreasoned beliefs and sketched out a third, and I think what you’ve written here actually reinforces the idea that people do in fact begin with these kind of beliefs, then weigh evidence in light of the presumption they are true—not start with a probabilistic belief and then evaluate evidence for that belief in order to see if it is true.  In any case, even believing the former I still think it worthwhile to engage anyone in the hope that these unreasoned beliefs can be dislodged and something like Bayesian reasoning be enjoined (and I presume interlocutors would make the same self-serving statement about me).

 

[ Edited: 16 September 2019 10:08 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1069
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
16 September 2019 09:15
 

(II)

I am pretty sure the claim in the article about how reality is socially constructed and that racism is woven into the “warp and woof” of that construction is a much stronger claim than Loury’s perfectly sensible point that a social stigma attaching to blacks is socially constructed, and people often unconsciously adopt this social construction; that this unconscious adoption influences discussions of policy.  Aside from the difference between the authors’ emphasis on “racism” and a social “stigma” Lowry refuses to call racism, there is also the difference between the “meaning of a policy” being “sensitive to the race of those affected” and discussion of a policy being so predetermined by racism that it takes extraordinary cases to overcome the racist “preconceptions” (the article refers to some geniuses being capable of this, but not the rest of us; we are pre-determined by those racist preconceptions).  Without having read Loury I am confident asserting his criteria for overcoming this non-racist stigma is sufficiently short of “genius.”

Based on what you say, I think likening Loury to Sowell is apt but that likening Loury to the article considerably softens the authors’ view and imposes an unlikely restriction on Loury’s.  Also, I did not mean to imply that either of my two specifications of “everywhere” is logically entailed in the article, only that the article represents an even more comprehensive notion of “everywhere” than I am suggesting with those two specifications. 

I will get Loury’s book.  Thanks for referring to it.

To conclude for my part, you seem to think there is a problematic moral injunction to what I’ve written, as well as a problem with its accuracy.  Specifically, you think it is “uncharitable” to ascribe fixed beliefs guiding judgment fortified with motivated reasoning when something like a flexible Bayesian reasoning could be imputed, and you think that the specific inflexible beliefs I have chosen fail to describe those I’ve chosen to describe as holding them.  For the reasons above I don’t think the first disagreement is a matter of moral injunction at all but rather a description of fact about how people reason in politics, and any moral lesson from that fact depends solely on personal choice, I think—either be willing to engage despite an extremely low probability of successfully changing anyone’s mind or dismiss them as biased because they don’t hold your views.  I think people demonstrably vary on where they land on this spectrum, and our own conversation indicates that that neither of us believes the latter extreme (at least in this case).

As for the accuracy, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.  I think the very debate that Trump is a racist indicates that the standard of “racist” has become as watered down I’ve suggested, and posters on this forum—in this very thread even—have confirmed that a prevailing belief among the left (whatever the label) is that racial disparities are de facto proof of systemic racism; that the “whole point” of naming systemic racism is to explain these disparities.  While we agree that…

No one “knows to what degree systemic racism is responsible for present day racial disparities”; that in fact the question may not “even make sense because it assumes that we can divide possible causes up into completely independent variables and assign different pieces of the racial disparity pie to independent causes, “ therefore “it just doesn’t make sense to say ‘Systemic racism accounts for 10% of today’s racial disparities, endogenous sub-cultural norms account for 40%, and individual choice accounts for 50%.”

…those I describe don’t agree.  For them, there is no question: current systemic racism is responsible for all of existing racial disparities.  Given that over and over again racial disparities are explained as the result of systemic racism, absent any mention whatsoever of other causes, and even with indignation—if not outright hostility—toward suggesting other potential causes…to be honest, given this I am a bit surprised anyone would find this second description controversial.

Although I apparently have the last word here, I won’t take it in any way as consent, and I hope readers will take it as a plausible reply to a well-argued stance.  In any case, good luck in school, and I look forward to when you find time to post again.

(As a postscript let me add that I agree with what you allude to here and have stated explicitly elsewhere: that rationality is emergent, not individual.  However, I repeat now and stress it this time: when there is systematic bias in the data emergent or crowd-sourced estimations of ‘truth’ aren’t reliable—the theorem you are referencing included.  And we see clear systematic bias in both the “Trump is a racist” data and the “systemic racism” data.  In both cases the politically conservative believe “no” on both counts and the politically liberal believe “yes.  As such this systematic bias means were are not seeing emergent truth but rather confirmation bias at work.  It is this confirmation bias that I have implicitly stressed in this thread, made explicit now.)

 

[ Edited: 16 September 2019 12:50 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1069
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
16 September 2019 09:23
 
lynmc - 14 September 2019 07:51 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 05 September 2019 08:33 AM

Trump Derangement Syndrome—i.e. the tendency to be equal parts inaccurate, apoplectic and hysterical over Donald Trump—emerged early in his campaign and blossomed at his election.  Although he said that black churches have inspired “a sense of charity and unity that binds us all together,” calling for a “civil rights agenda of our time”; although he said we must “work to ensure that all of our kids are treated equally” and seek to make life better “for young Americans in Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit and Ferguson”; although he said that “Mexican American citizens” have made great contributions to “our two countries” and that illegal immigration is a problem because it threatens legal, low wage workers, “especially African-American and Hispanic workers” for whom upward mobility should be a priority (emphasis added); in short, although he said all these things, outlets like Slate, Vox, HuffPost, and Salon declared, just in different ways, that Trump was “running on pure white supremacy” and was “an openly white supremacist nominee”; that “there’s no such thing as a good Trump voter”; that “Trump’s win is a reminder of the incredible, unbeatable power of racism”; and that “Trump’s win tells people of color they aren’t welcome in America.”  How can such a disconnect between what a candidate actually says and what a candidate purportedly represents persist?  What explains Trump Derangement Syndrome?

First, TDS requires selective emphasis.  The above named outlets focused only on the deplorable things he said during the campaign—things like the “grab’em by the pussy” and illegal immigrants are “bringing drugs,” “bringing crime” and “they are rapists” etc.—then they define him against those statements while selectively omitting the things he says contrary to the definition.  Thus Trump Derangement Syndrome has as its first step cherry-picking negative comments at the specific exclusion of the positive ones, or ones otherwise politically normal.  This cherry-picking is doubly suspect when one considers that mainstream outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post dutifully reported on most of the speeches in which the above statements were made—or if not them, then local media outlets did, outlets easily accessible to anyone following the campaign (as presumably the editors at Slate et. al. did).  In any case, the primary element of Trump Derangement Syndrome is cherry-picking in what can only be described as bad faith, a bad faith that excludes in advance any possibility of something positive about the man.  Not everyone who has the syndrome is guilty of this per se; some simply inherit it for having caught the syndrome.

Second, TDS is rooted in hate.  Because of this bad faith cherry picking; because of this willful misconstrual of Trump as a “white supremacist” or a “racist,” regardless of the intellectual honesty sacrificed to maintain it; because of this refusal to give the man, apriori, anything like fair shake based on the full gamut of what he actually says—for these reasons Trump Derangement Syndrome is an expression of hate, a hate that extends not just to Trump himself but to anyone who supports him.  “Hate” here means simply an apriori disposition to see nothing but negative, nothing worth redeeming, nothing favoring compromise or reconciliation.  It is, I think, the perfect analogue of the “love” that equally blinds and binds die-hard Trump supporters to Trump.  For them, nothing he says pricks the bubble of their derangement in favor of him, just as nothing he says will prick the derangement against him.  In my experience this dual tendency to “love” and “hate” underlies all politics, but it seems to me clearer now.  It seems to me amplified into its purest forms during Trump’s campaign, and his Presidency.  In any case, Trump Derangement Syndrome is driven by a politics of hate that refuses to see anything potentially redeeming in the man, much less his policies or his supporters, and its primary mechanism for maintaining the Derangement is cherry-picking only his deplorable and idiotic statements, at the specific exclusion of those not so (again, willful at the source; by inheritance among the infected).  Taken together hate and cherry-picking drive the roughly 8% of the population that either self-identify or can be accurately identified as “far left,” or “activist left,” or at the political level the “Justice Democrats” (the left’s version of the Tea Party).  Their outlets, as mentioned above, include journals like Slate, Vox, HuffPost, and Salon.

I have already defended the so-called “Trump supporter” against this politics of hate and its Derangement Syndrome here.  This time I want to shift the focus, from the man per se and his supporters to the dynamics of the upcoming election.  My thesis—which I leave open for discussion—is that if Trump Derangement Syndrome persists; if this 8% of the population comes to define the Democratic primary; if the meaning of the Democratic platform becomes as divorced from reality as Warren’s recent Ferguson Tweet; then what should be a 3-foot layup for a Democratic win will become a 50-50 three-point shot.  In other words, what in professional basketball should be a sure thing could end up going either way.  To this point, I maintain that that the middle voter that could go either way in any given election, depending on the candidate (Obama skunked Romney, for instance), is sick and tired of the politics of hate.  They are sick and tired seeing derangement and hysterical outrage rule politics, whether it is deranged support for Trump or deranged opposition against him.  And more specifically, the sense of fairness intrinsic to most people dispose these voters to side with someone—if they side with anyone—who is the target of unfair treatment—not unfair in a moral sense, exactly, but unfair in an obvious sense where the hysteria, derangement, and outrage is as disconnected from the reality as is the disconnect is between ‘Trump is running on pure white supremacy” versus what Trump actually said about race during the campaign.  That kind of disconnect cannot maintain itself in the face of facts—facts that are covered in the national and local non-ideological outlets—and my fear is that should the Democratic platform be high-jacked by TDS, this will create, against its intent, enough valance toward Trump to edge out the election, just as he edged it out in 2016.  I don’t think people caught up in Trump Derangement Syndrome appreciate how outright ridiculous it looks when one has access to—and reads—the broader coverage of what he actually says on any given issue, and therefore what he presumably stands for (if he stands for anything but his own aggrandizement, which is unlikely).  Anyway, the dangers of it infecting the 2020 election is the germ of a fear I leave open for discussion, no doubt subject to augmentation along the way…

I think you’re missing completely the real reasons people voted for Trump.  I came across this interesting study: https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/the-five-types-trump-voters.  I doubt many voted for him because he was unjustly accused of racism.  Some may have been attracted because they think whites are unjustly treated compared to blacks or other people of color - in other words, because they’re racist.  A large number voted against Clinton as she epitomized the elite, the moneyed interests.  Warren or Sanders could easily get the anti-elite voters.

As to Trump being a racist, I’m sorry, your claim that no racist would say e.g. black churches have inspired “a sense of charity and unity that binds us all together,” is just plain false, a racist politician would say that in trying to garner votes as he was clearly trying to do. Nor do statements like that exculpate him. 

Here’s another interesting datum: when he makes charges of racism, it’s generally against blacks, (from https://newrepublic.com/article/154743/donald-trumps-guide-racism) - playing to racist white victim-hood identity.  This isn’t cherry-picking.

If you’re one of those whites who perceive yourself as a victim of racism, I’m sorry.

I did not given any reason why Trump supporters voted for Trump, so I don’t see how I could have missed any “real” ones.  The article was interesting; thanks.

I did not say Trump would never say such things, only the he would never believe them if he is what the “woke” media is claiming he is.  And positing that he doesn’t believe them in order to come up with a reason why he would say them begs the question of his racism.  Politicians pander; that’s almost a given.  That they pander in a specific way to conceal their racism is not a given; it’s an assumption, and in this case one that relies on the very conclusion it purports to prove. 
 
I have no comment on that silly “white victim-hood” business, including the even sillier imputation.

 

[ Edited: 16 September 2019 09:47 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  3047
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
16 September 2019 09:54
 

Since when can you read Trump’s mind?

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  773
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
16 September 2019 12:43
 

Riddle me this, where are all the non-racist instances of people using “go back to where you came from”, or similar constructions, so that P(O|B)/P(O) <= 1 for that instance.

 
no_profundia
 
Avatar
 
 
no_profundia
Total Posts:  548
Joined  14-07-2016
 
 
 
16 September 2019 14:53
 

Thanks Analytic, it has been great talking with you as well. Hopefully we can resume this discussion or another in the near future. Take care.

 
 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  490
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
19 September 2019 20:45
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 16 September 2019 09:23 AM
lynmc - 14 September 2019 07:51 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 05 September 2019 08:33 AM

Trump Derangement Syndrome—i.e. the tendency to be equal parts inaccurate, apoplectic and hysterical over Donald Trump—emerged early in his campaign and blossomed at his election.  Although he said that black churches have inspired “a sense of charity and unity that binds us all together,” calling for a “civil rights agenda of our time”; although he said we must “work to ensure that all of our kids are treated equally” and seek to make life better “for young Americans in Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit and Ferguson”; although he said that “Mexican American citizens” have made great contributions to “our two countries” and that illegal immigration is a problem because it threatens legal, low wage workers, “especially African-American and Hispanic workers” for whom upward mobility should be a priority (emphasis added); in short, although he said all these things, outlets like Slate, Vox, HuffPost, and Salon declared, just in different ways, that Trump was “running on pure white supremacy” and was “an openly white supremacist nominee”; that “there’s no such thing as a good Trump voter”; that “Trump’s win is a reminder of the incredible, unbeatable power of racism”; and that “Trump’s win tells people of color they aren’t welcome in America.”  How can such a disconnect between what a candidate actually says and what a candidate purportedly represents persist?  What explains Trump Derangement Syndrome?

First, TDS requires selective emphasis.  The above named outlets focused only on the deplorable things he said during the campaign—things like the “grab’em by the pussy” and illegal immigrants are “bringing drugs,” “bringing crime” and “they are rapists” etc.—then they define him against those statements while selectively omitting the things he says contrary to the definition.  Thus Trump Derangement Syndrome has as its first step cherry-picking negative comments at the specific exclusion of the positive ones, or ones otherwise politically normal.  This cherry-picking is doubly suspect when one considers that mainstream outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post dutifully reported on most of the speeches in which the above statements were made—or if not them, then local media outlets did, outlets easily accessible to anyone following the campaign (as presumably the editors at Slate et. al. did).  In any case, the primary element of Trump Derangement Syndrome is cherry-picking in what can only be described as bad faith, a bad faith that excludes in advance any possibility of something positive about the man.  Not everyone who has the syndrome is guilty of this per se; some simply inherit it for having caught the syndrome.

Second, TDS is rooted in hate.  Because of this bad faith cherry picking; because of this willful misconstrual of Trump as a “white supremacist” or a “racist,” regardless of the intellectual honesty sacrificed to maintain it; because of this refusal to give the man, apriori, anything like fair shake based on the full gamut of what he actually says—for these reasons Trump Derangement Syndrome is an expression of hate, a hate that extends not just to Trump himself but to anyone who supports him.  “Hate” here means simply an apriori disposition to see nothing but negative, nothing worth redeeming, nothing favoring compromise or reconciliation.  It is, I think, the perfect analogue of the “love” that equally blinds and binds die-hard Trump supporters to Trump.  For them, nothing he says pricks the bubble of their derangement in favor of him, just as nothing he says will prick the derangement against him.  In my experience this dual tendency to “love” and “hate” underlies all politics, but it seems to me clearer now.  It seems to me amplified into its purest forms during Trump’s campaign, and his Presidency.  In any case, Trump Derangement Syndrome is driven by a politics of hate that refuses to see anything potentially redeeming in the man, much less his policies or his supporters, and its primary mechanism for maintaining the Derangement is cherry-picking only his deplorable and idiotic statements, at the specific exclusion of those not so (again, willful at the source; by inheritance among the infected).  Taken together hate and cherry-picking drive the roughly 8% of the population that either self-identify or can be accurately identified as “far left,” or “activist left,” or at the political level the “Justice Democrats” (the left’s version of the Tea Party).  Their outlets, as mentioned above, include journals like Slate, Vox, HuffPost, and Salon.

I have already defended the so-called “Trump supporter” against this politics of hate and its Derangement Syndrome here.  This time I want to shift the focus, from the man per se and his supporters to the dynamics of the upcoming election.  My thesis—which I leave open for discussion—is that if Trump Derangement Syndrome persists; if this 8% of the population comes to define the Democratic primary; if the meaning of the Democratic platform becomes as divorced from reality as Warren’s recent Ferguson Tweet; then what should be a 3-foot layup for a Democratic win will become a 50-50 three-point shot.  In other words, what in professional basketball should be a sure thing could end up going either way.  To this point, I maintain that that the middle voter that could go either way in any given election, depending on the candidate (Obama skunked Romney, for instance), is sick and tired of the politics of hate.  They are sick and tired seeing derangement and hysterical outrage rule politics, whether it is deranged support for Trump or deranged opposition against him.  And more specifically, the sense of fairness intrinsic to most people dispose these voters to side with someone—if they side with anyone—who is the target of unfair treatment—not unfair in a moral sense, exactly, but unfair in an obvious sense where the hysteria, derangement, and outrage is as disconnected from the reality as is the disconnect is between ‘Trump is running on pure white supremacy” versus what Trump actually said about race during the campaign.  That kind of disconnect cannot maintain itself in the face of facts—facts that are covered in the national and local non-ideological outlets—and my fear is that should the Democratic platform be high-jacked by TDS, this will create, against its intent, enough valance toward Trump to edge out the election, just as he edged it out in 2016.  I don’t think people caught up in Trump Derangement Syndrome appreciate how outright ridiculous it looks when one has access to—and reads—the broader coverage of what he actually says on any given issue, and therefore what he presumably stands for (if he stands for anything but his own aggrandizement, which is unlikely).  Anyway, the dangers of it infecting the 2020 election is the germ of a fear I leave open for discussion, no doubt subject to augmentation along the way…

I think you’re missing completely the real reasons people voted for Trump.  I came across this interesting study: https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/the-five-types-trump-voters.  I doubt many voted for him because he was unjustly accused of racism.  Some may have been attracted because they think whites are unjustly treated compared to blacks or other people of color - in other words, because they’re racist.  A large number voted against Clinton as she epitomized the elite, the moneyed interests.  Warren or Sanders could easily get the anti-elite voters.

As to Trump being a racist, I’m sorry, your claim that no racist would say e.g. black churches have inspired “a sense of charity and unity that binds us all together,” is just plain false, a racist politician would say that in trying to garner votes as he was clearly trying to do. Nor do statements like that exculpate him. 

Here’s another interesting datum: when he makes charges of racism, it’s generally against blacks, (from https://newrepublic.com/article/154743/donald-trumps-guide-racism) - playing to racist white victim-hood identity.  This isn’t cherry-picking.

If you’re one of those whites who perceive yourself as a victim of racism, I’m sorry.

I did not given any reason why Trump supporters voted for Trump, so I don’t see how I could have missed any “real” ones.  The article was interesting; thanks.

I did not say Trump would never say such things, only the he would never believe them if he is what the “woke” media is claiming he is.  And positing that he doesn’t believe them in order to come up with a reason why he would say them begs the question of his racism.  Politicians pander; that’s almost a given.  That they pander in a specific way to conceal their racism is not a given; it’s an assumption, and in this case one that relies on the very conclusion it purports to prove. 
 
I have no comment on that silly “white victim-hood” business, including the even sillier imputation.

 

I’m claiming that the Trump quotes you listed in no way exculpates him of being a racist (which is a claim I think you made somewhere, I don’t want to hunt it down now).  I never said he panders to conceal racism, I said he panders to garner votes.  I don’t have to posit “that he doesn’t believe them in order to come up with a reason why he would say them,” whether he believes what he says or not he would still say them.

Post #3: “yet he says things that contradict what any racist and white supremacists would say.”  That’s just plain false, assuming he is a racist he would very well say such things anyway, if his motive to garner votes exceeds his motive to honestly represent his views on race.  As to his motive to honestly represent his views on race, I don’t think he has any impulse to be honest and I doubt he even can tell fact from fiction, including regarding his own views.

You listed one possible reason voters might vote for Trump (who might otherwise not) above, that they think he’s unfairly accused of racism.  Granted, the reasons they vote for him in next election aren’t necessarily why they voted for him before, however, I think it goes to the discussion that people who voted for him before are reasonably likely to do so again for similar reasons.  If he stood to gain votes from the accusation of being a racist, it would be from racists who already think he’s one of their own, not because the accusation is unfair.  For sure, he plays the white victim-hood card to racists as I’ve noted, and IMHO that is in and of itself racist.  In any case, Trump isn’t going to gain any votes because he’s unfairly accused of racism by the “woke” left or anyone, he already pretty much has the white racist voters, who are the ones that would be swayed to vote for him by such an accusation, locked in.  Focusing so narrowly on accusations of racism misses all kinds of reasons why people will vote for Trump.

I apologize if you think I accused you thinking you’re a white victim of racism.

 
‹ First  < 7 8 9 10 >