‹ First  < 8 9 10
 
   
 

Trump Derangement Syndrome and the 2020 Election

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1082
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
21 September 2019 02:39
 

lynmc

Had you quoted less selectively, you might have avoided a misinterpretation and noticed that you are doing the same thing called out in that post: explaining away a contradiction with an assumption, in this case the assumption Trump is a racist.  As you yourself say, “assuming he is a racist he would very well say such things anyway…” (my emphasis).  Exactly: assuming.  That’s all you’ve done here, then you go on to interpret selected statements in light of the assumption being true.  The problem with this—and the antidote—is explained in post 129.

This last post exhausts my interest in this whole “racism” canard.  If you think one can keep beating the same drum and win over the middle ground, have at it and see what happens.  For some contrary facts are penetrating this self-reinforcing (and hence non-falsifiable) narrative, albeit dimly (very dimly).

Apology accepted, but you really didn’t need one because I wasn’t offended. 

See you around…

[ Edited: 21 September 2019 03:26 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  490
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
23 September 2019 15:06
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 21 September 2019 02:39 AM

lynmc

Had you quoted less selectively, you might have avoided a misinterpretation and noticed that you are doing the same thing called out in that post: explaining away a contradiction with an assumption, in this case the assumption Trump is a racist.  As you yourself say, “assuming he is a racist he would very well say such things anyway…” (my emphasis).  Exactly: assuming.  That’s all you’ve done here, then you go on to interpret selected statements in light of the assumption being true.  The problem with this—and the antidote—is explained in post 129.

This last post exhausts my interest in this whole “racism” canard.  If you think one can keep beating the same drum and win over the middle ground, have at it and see what happens.  For some contrary facts are penetrating this self-reinforcing (and hence non-falsifiable) narrative, albeit dimly (very dimly).

Apology accepted, but you really didn’t need one because I wasn’t offended. 

See you around…

I was not explaining away a contradiction with an assumption, I’m saying that Trump being a racist and saying things supportive of Black churches as in your original post is NOT a contradiction, regardless of the given assumption.  You’re perhaps too focused on this a priori thing and a priori assumed that was my argument, perhaps?

Here are my estimates,

P ( NOT trump a racist | his approval of white supremacists in Charlottesville ) is very low (I give the same estimate to a couple other things he’s said or done, appointing Steve Bannon, his ad regarding the Central Park 5 & the like)

Call this P ( A | B ).  Since Trump gave his approval to white supremacists in Chalottesville, P( B) = 1, and also, P ( A intersect B ) = P (A)

By conditional probability theorem, therefore, P ( NOT trump a racist ) is close to zero, hence P ( trump a racist ) is close to 1.

 

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1082
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
07 October 2019 07:18
 

Two points as a P.S.

1. Trump did not approve of white supremacists at Charlottesville.  He specifically singled out the “Neo-Nazis” and the “white nationalists” as the people he was not talking about when he said “very fine people on both sides.”  And in the same breath of singling them out he said they should be “condemned totally.”  Richard Spencer’s belief that Trump was supporting his cause is as delusional as yours.

This Op Ed points out the error, with reference to Biden launching his campaign.  The full transcript is here (cited in the Op Ed).

2.  The probability of A intersects B is P(A|B)P(B), not P(A).  All your “estimates” do is stipulate, i.e. assume, the conclusion “Trump is a racist” given a single piece of (mis)information, then they rely on gobbledygook to dress up the assumption.  Re-read post 129 if you want to learn how Bayes theorem and conditional probability work on a problem like this. 

[ Edited: 07 October 2019 07:24 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3494
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
07 October 2019 07:55
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 07 October 2019 07:18 AM

Two points as a P.S.

1. Trump did not approve of white supremacists at Charlottesville.  He specifically singled out the “Neo-Nazis” and the “white nationalists” as the people he was not talking about when he said “very fine people on both sides.”  And in the same breath of singling them out he said they should be “condemned totally.”  Richard Spencer’s belief that Trump was supporting his cause is as delusional as yours.

This Op Ed points out the error, with reference to Biden launching his campaign.  The full transcript is here (cited in the Op Ed).

2.  The probability of A intersects B is P(A|B)P(B), not P(A).  All your “estimates” do is stipulate, i.e. assume, the conclusion “Trump is a racist” given a single piece of (mis)information, then they rely on gobbledygook to dress up the assumption.  Re-read post 129 if you want to learn how Bayes theorem and conditional probability work on a problem like this.

Trump is an expert in double-talk, vagueness and the use of confusion to divide, keep his base happy and the public off-kilter.  A skill perfected over a lifetime of being an asshole.  His Charlottesville statement, if taken alone, would not have been interpreted as it was if not for the fact that it fit in with a pattern that shows his obvious view of racial superiority.

In regards to the Trump administration family separation policy – do you think this would have been inflicted on little white blonde children?

It doesn’t require academic analysis to see what Trump is, regardless of the final designation individuals choose to call it. 

 

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1082
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
07 October 2019 14:28
 

His Charlottesville statement, if taken alone, would not have been interpreted as it was if not for the fact that it fit in with a pattern that shows his obvious view of racial superiority.

So Trump specifically singles out people who hold views of racial superiority for total condemnation and this fits a pattern that reveals “his obvious views of racial superiority”?!  In point of fact it does not fit the pattern, first because it is contrary to it, and second because the pattern does not exist.

His Charlottesville comment would not have been taken as it was if he were being treated fairly, nothing more. 

In regards to the Trump administration family separation policy – do you think this would have been inflicted on little white blonde children?

If Mexicans were white and blonde and 10 million had already illegally entered the US, then yes, there would be a family separation policy under Trump.  Family separation policy stems from zero-tolerance against illegal immigration, not zero-tolerance against race.

Also, one sure way not to have one’s family separated by border security is not to bring your family across the border illegally.  In any case, it’s a bad policy for multiple reasons, just not a racist one.

It doesn’t require academic analysis to see what Trump is, regardless of the final designation individuals choose to call it.

No, but careful analysis shows the prevalence of errors when it comes to seeing what Trump is, abundantly illustrated in this thread.

[ Edited: 07 October 2019 14:40 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3494
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
07 October 2019 16:47
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 07 October 2019 02:28 PM

His Charlottesville statement, if taken alone, would not have been interpreted as it was if not for the fact that it fit in with a pattern that shows his obvious view of racial superiority.

So Trump specifically singles out people who hold views of racial superiority for total condemnation and this fits a pattern that reveals “his obvious views of racial superiority”?!  In point of fact it does not fit the pattern, first because it is contrary to it, and second because the pattern does not exist.

His Charlottesville comment would not have been taken as it was if he were being treated fairly, nothing more. 

In regards to the Trump administration family separation policy – do you think this would have been inflicted on little white blonde children?

If Mexicans were white and blonde and 10 million had already illegally entered the US, then yes, there would be a family separation policy under Trump.  Family separation policy stems from zero-tolerance against illegal immigration, not zero-tolerance against race.

Also, one sure way not to have one’s family separated by border security is not to bring your family across the border illegally.  In any case, it’s a bad policy for multiple reasons, just not a racist one.

It doesn’t require academic analysis to see what Trump is, regardless of the final designation individuals choose to call it.

No, but careful analysis shows the prevalence of errors when it comes to seeing what Trump is, abundantly illustrated in this thread.

Trump is consistently inconsistent in regards to race, but his message does get through.

The separation of children from parents is a despicable act, contrary to international law, for which there can be no justification.  To deny that racism is a factor that led to its implementation flies in the face of the comments Trump has made about Mexicans/Hispanics.  It is easier for some people to be cruel to those who they consider not equal to themselves, which I suspect is a factor that allowed ICE officers to follow those inhumane orders.

It is not uncommon to bury biases behind extensive analyses that over-emphasizes certain factors at the expense of others, obscuring the whole picture.  It is just as (if not more) harmful to not see racism where it does exist as to see racism where it does not exist.

 

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1082
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
08 October 2019 07:14
 

To deny that racism is a factor that led to its implementation flies in the face of the comments Trump has made about Mexicans/Hispanics.

And to assert that racism is a factor flies in the face of what he has said about Mexicans/Hispanics, specifically that legal immigrants are a valuable contribution to America whose welfare is adversely affected by the illegal ones (I think mapadofu linked to those comments earlier in the thread).  Why not predicate the policy on the distinction between “legal” and “illegal,” instead of race, when legal versus illegal is the underlying problem, not race?

In any case, asserting “racism” is also complicated by a long, nativist, anti-immigrant tradition in America directed just as much against whites as at racially distinct groups (Germans, Poles, Slavs, Irish, Italians, etc. have all been targeted).  In other words, anti-immigration sentiments in this country have long been as much—or more—about otherness of language, culture and religion as it has been about “race,” and that it looks like it’s about race now is likely a function of no culturally distinct whites immigrating here in large numbers, period, much less illegally by the millions.  And note: even the likes of Ted Cruz allow for the immigration of Christian Syrian refugees who are as ethnically distinct from us ‘native’ folks as Hispanics, even as he has zero-tolerance for illegal Mexican immigration—and so forth. 

As I see it, this issue is far more complicated than the false dichotomy of “racism” and “oppression” can capture. 

But peace out on this, shall we?  You seem to imply I’m burying biases behind extensive analysis (fair enough, maybe so), and I’d argue I’ve show that certainties like yours stem from a defective one.  Is that fair enough and maybe so?  If so, how about we leave it at that (after you comment on any of the above points as the last word, should you wish to…)?

 

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3494
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
08 October 2019 09:52
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 08 October 2019 07:14 AM

To deny that racism is a factor that led to its implementation flies in the face of the comments Trump has made about Mexicans/Hispanics.

And to assert that racism is a factor flies in the face of what he has said about Mexicans/Hispanics, specifically that legal immigrants are a valuable contribution to America whose welfare is adversely affected by the illegal ones (I think mapadofu linked to those comments earlier in the thread).  Why not predicate the policy on the distinction between “legal” and “illegal,” instead of race, when legal versus illegal is the underlying problem, not race?

In any case, asserting “racism” is also complicated by a long, nativist, anti-immigrant tradition in America directed just as much against whites as at racially distinct groups (Germans, Poles, Slavs, Irish, Italians, etc. have all been targeted).  In other words, anti-immigration sentiments in this country have long been as much—or more—about otherness of language, culture and religion as it has been about “race,” and that it looks like it’s about race now is likely a function of no culturally distinct whites immigrating here in large numbers, period, much less illegally by the millions.  And note: even the likes of Ted Cruz allow for the immigration of Christian Syrian refugees who are as ethnically distinct from us ‘native’ folks as Hispanics, even as he has zero-tolerance for illegal Mexican immigration—and so forth. 

As I see it, this issue is far more complicated than the false dichotomy of “racism” and “oppression” can capture. 

But peace out on this, shall we?  You seem to imply I’m burying biases behind extensive analysis (fair enough, maybe so), and I’d argue I’ve show that certainties like yours stem from a defective one.  Is that fair enough and maybe so?  If so, how about we leave it at that (after you comment on any of the above points as the last word, should you wish to…)?

Yes, this issue is complicated.  And, of course, racism is not the only form of prejudice and discrimination.  Sadly, there’s always the prejudices-of-the-day, and unprincipled leaders will use these to their advantage if a society allows it; failure to recognize this can be dangerous.

Yeah, fair enough ... although I would argue that a different method of reasoning from yours is not defective.  My position on many issues is consistent – that to arrive at ‘truths’, compassion and reason are both needed, properly balanced.  Academic discussions such as on this thread that narrow in on word usage (‘racism’) and promote labelling (‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’) distracts from the core issues and can divide people unnecessarily.

Peace out on this?  Okay ... (dismissed again).

 

 
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  3053
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
08 October 2019 21:17
 

Trump is against legal immigration just as much as illegal immigration.
The distinction is a red herring.
He keeps on making it harder and harder to get a permit to live and work in the US.
But the logical thing to do if you want to reduce illegal immigration would be to streamline and better staff/fund the legal immigration system.
Unless you are Norwegian, Trump doesn’t want you, legal or not.

 
 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  490
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
11 October 2019 14:37
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 07 October 2019 07:18 AM

Two points as a P.S.

1. Trump did not approve of white supremacists at Charlottesville.  He specifically singled out the “Neo-Nazis” and the “white nationalists” as the people he was not talking about when he said “very fine people on both sides.”  And in the same breath of singling them out he said they should be “condemned totally.”  Richard Spencer’s belief that Trump was supporting his cause is as delusional as yours.

This Op Ed points out the error, with reference to Biden launching his campaign.  The full transcript is here (cited in the Op Ed).

2.  The probability of A intersects B is P(A|B)P(B), not P(A).  All your “estimates” do is stipulate, i.e. assume, the conclusion “Trump is a racist” given a single piece of (mis)information, then they rely on gobbledygook to dress up the assumption.  Re-read post 129 if you want to learn how Bayes theorem and conditional probability work on a problem like this. 

You’re fooling yourself.  Trump excludes nazis and white nationalists, he doesn’t exclude white supremacists (not all white supremacists are the nazis or white nationalists he excluded).  He doesn’t exclude racists.  According to wikipedia, the march in Charlottesville was a white supremacist march, organized by a white supremacist, likely, to a person everyone in it was a white supremacist.  There may be some people who want to keep statues of confederate heroes solely for historical reasons, but they wouldn’t be going to the white supremacist march.  Trump praised white supremacists.  I could give him the benefit of the doubt and say maybe he believed the hand waving by white supremacists (we’re only trying to preserve history, not - yeah, right) - to me, that doesn’t exonerate him whatsoever from the charge of racism - it just means he readily buys white supremacist talking points and excuses, that indicates who he follows and believes.

So, to conclude, I don’t have a piece of misinformation, and btw I don’t have a single piece either, the ad regarding the Central Park 5 and the association with Bannon are also clues.  Also, the probabilities I stated are perfectly correct when P(B) =1.  Neither is assigning probabilities making an assumption.  You seem to think that things with high probability are always true?  Now that’s an assuming a conclusion.

 
‹ First  < 8 9 10