Trump is still Racist, reffers to El Salvador, Haiti and African Nations as "shithole countries"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

erttheking:

Whitbane:

BeetleManiac:

Right, as everybody knows the only non-shitty countries to live in are all white people countries. Can't have these inferior mongrel races thinking that they're our equal. Next they'll be demanding their human rights and wanting to participate on the world's stage.

If these countries weren't shitty they wouldn't be coming over here in droves.

And yeah, almost all the best countries in the world are heavily white countries. That's pretty much a fact.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/countries-with-the-highest-standard-of-living-social-progress-index/

Congrats on utterly missing the point. Check Gethsemani's post for more details on how. Also, ignore all the major steps in progress that countries like South Africa have made to have better standards of living. You just know they're all shit holes, despite the fact that the majority of people in the first world can't even name half of the countries in Africa. This is what we call "Stereotyping."

I don't care about their developments.

No one would ever choose to live in an African country over any western nation.

They are objectively shitholes when compared to any developed western nation.

erttheking:
Take a guess at how many of the countries he called shit holes are populated predominately mainly by white people. Go ahead, guess. You shouldn't have to think hard, considering he just lumped the biggest continent in the world into one big ball.

The countries he mentioned (and those he bundled up into a continent) are not places most people not from them would choose to live. The reasons vary from country to country, but are largely regardless of race (excepting when race / religion is the motivator in a regional conflict).

For all the people leaping to defend Africa, it is still a hell of a lot more dangerous than the West. South Africa is said to have improved, but there are still vast swathes that you wouldn't want to go near if you could avoid it. The more prosperous areas of the rest of Africa still tend to have militant issues.

Now, I don't think Trump is the right person to be calling anywhere a shithole. But if we can treat this as being independent of race, we can all happily agree that it's because he's an elitist prick with no respect for the common man. You start reading too far into things, you lose people.

ObsidianJones:
People in the ghetto know where they live in shit, but they don't need others who are not going through it to judge them. you think people in Haiti, El Salvador, and Africa don't know they are struggling? Believe me, they do. But they don't need a man who only does about three hours of "work" and is probably the luckiest man who ever lived spouting off about them. America is really turning into a Second World Nation. Do we need the rest of the world judging us? Hell, we elect people who yell "AMERICA FIRST" while laying out obvious plans to gut America... because they yelled America first.

I agree with everything you say here, but it's still a leap to cry racism. It's classism. Elitism. Him being an insufferable prick.

That said, other historical comments of Trump's can be used to argue inherent racism, but if you're doing that you could have taken him as a racist regardless of what he said here.

CaitSeith:

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
A president (of any country) should be more tactful to put it mildly but those countries really are shitholes (by Western standards). Its not racist since there isn't any implication that they are shitholes because of their demographics. Maybe if you stretched it and made an argument that its not right to measure other countries and cultures by our own values but even thats more culturalist than racist.

I don't know guys. Out of all the racist shit Trump has said I don't know why this one is being singled out. Doesn't even come close to the top 10.

- They are shitholes.
- Why?
- You know why!
- No seriously, Mr. President. Why?

You know you live in a shithole when you get used to the daily stench.

Don't know wtf you're trying to say here

Whitbane:

I don't care about their developments.

No one would ever choose to live in an African country over any western nation.

Just this week I met a Swedish girl who lived and studied in Kenya. So, you know, that's false.

Whitbane:
They are objectively shitholes when compared to any developed western nation.

Baring the fact that "shit hole" is a subjective descriptor. If we look at the Gallup World Poll for 2015-2016 the population of Nicaragua, Panama, Dominican Republic and a bunch of other countries in Central and South America are happier then the US population and some of those rate higher in perceived Quality of Life. In Africa countries like the Ivory Coast, Botswana, Zambia and Rwanda people are just as happy as Americans.

So, how about we stop pretending as if "shit hole" is some objective measurement when it is, in fact, simply a derogatory term. Many of the countries I listed above have problems, be it with poverty, corruption, disease or similar, but that's apparently not enough to stop those people from being happy.

Which is all beside the point, which no one on your side of this argument has argued against yet, that the subjective experience of the conditions in these places really doesn't tell us anything about the people coming from them. If Haiti is a "shit hole", why should that bar Haitians from entering the USA? Does "comes from a shit hole" tell us anything about the individuals wanting to enter the USA?

Whitbane:

I don't care about their developments.

Color me very fucking unsurprised.

Give it twenty or so years of people in Africa try to build up while people like Trump try to make things worse in the west. Let's see if that's still the case then. Quality of life is improving over there, I don't see that happening here. Not with the current administration anyway. As Geth pointed out, some countries in Africa actually have higher rates of happiness than the USA.

But you go ahead and be dismissive because of a simplistic mindset of "west better." Even though the west is mainly better (in terms of infrastructure anyway) because of the way it exploits third world nations.

And "no one wants to live in an African nation." And I trust you have a citation on that other than "I said so?" Because it seems Gethsemani already blew that flimsy argument out of the water.

Catnip1024:

erttheking:
Take a guess at how many of the countries he called shit holes are populated predominately mainly by white people. Go ahead, guess. You shouldn't have to think hard, considering he just lumped the biggest continent in the world into one big ball.

The countries he mentioned (and those he bundled up into a continent) are not places most people not from them would choose to live. The reasons vary from country to country, but are largely regardless of race (excepting when race / religion is the motivator in a regional conflict).

For all the people leaping to defend Africa, it is still a hell of a lot more dangerous than the West. South Africa is said to have improved, but there are still vast swathes that you wouldn't want to go near if you could avoid it. The more prosperous areas of the rest of Africa still tend to have militant issues.

Got a citation to back that up? I'm pretty sure most people want to live in their homes. They just want to make things better. That's like saying "most people don't want to live in the USA if they could live in another first world country"

Is anyone denying that? I don't see that. I just see people taking issue with all the major accomplishments being made there being ignored, and the biggest continent in the world being rolled into one big ball by people who probably aren't that educated on the matter. Also there's a world of fucking difference between "shit hole" and "not as a good." There's a load of negative connotations with shit hole, mainly the implication that nothing of value comes out of there.

Catnip1024:

Now, I don't think Trump is the right person to be calling anywhere a shithole. But if we can treat this as being independent of race, we can all happily agree that it's because he's an elitist prick with no respect for the common man. You start reading too far into things, you lose people.

Treating it as being independent of race requires the statement to exist in a vacuum. It doesn't. Trump has done nothing to earn the benefit of the doubt. We have seen and heard him do stuff like this countless times before. It's racist, and you've offered nothing of substance that rebuts this accusation.

And losing people? The only people I'm "losing" are the same people that regularly pop up to defend Trump whenever he says or does something stupid. I'm not losing them, I never had them.

Catnip1024:

ObsidianJones:
People in the ghetto know where they live in shit, but they don't need others who are not going through it to judge them. you think people in Haiti, El Salvador, and Africa don't know they are struggling? Believe me, they do. But they don't need a man who only does about three hours of "work" and is probably the luckiest man who ever lived spouting off about them. America is really turning into a Second World Nation. Do we need the rest of the world judging us? Hell, we elect people who yell "AMERICA FIRST" while laying out obvious plans to gut America... because they yelled America first.

I agree with everything you say here, but it's still a leap to cry racism. It's classism. Elitism. Him being an insufferable prick.

That said, other historical comments of Trump's can be used to argue inherent racism, but if you're doing that you could have taken him as a racist regardless of what he said here.

Well, I never made the comment that he's Racist for this. I believe he has bigotry, stemming from his Father's teachings and practices. And his bigotry does color the reason he says things.

Like the time he said all Haitians have AIDS and all Nigerians live in Huts.

Lagos, Nigeria says hi by the way, Trump.

The Lunatic:
I mean... Is being El Salvadorian a race?

I always found it odd how word-conscious the left is, insisting what can and can't be said, what's sexist, what's gender-neutral, appropriate pronouns and so on.

Yet when it comes to attacking people, they're seemingly much more loose.

The correct term is "Jingoistic", or perhaps "Nationalistic".

Just figured it'd be a "The more you know" sorta thing.

Anyway.

These countries are pretty shit. Of course you probably shouldn't say that to their faces, but, they're shit countries and there's little to be gained from interacting with them.

You're right. Trump is just a white nationalist

I drove through Michigan last week to pick up a buddy from the Detroit airport. Speaking of shithole, crime-ridden countries that I would never immigrate to.......

erttheking:

Catnip1024:

Now, I don't think Trump is the right person to be calling anywhere a shithole. But if we can treat this as being independent of race, we can all happily agree that it's because he's an elitist prick with no respect for the common man. You start reading too far into things, you lose people.

So you are saying you think that Trump is the right person to be calling places shitholes? Mkay so, if you want.

Treating it as being independent of race requires the statement to exist in a vacuum. It doesn't. Trump has done nothing to earn the benefit of the doubt. We have seen and heard him do stuff like this countless times before. It's racist, and you've offered nothing of substance that rebuts this accusation.

And losing people? The only people I'm "losing" are the same people that regularly pop up to defend Trump whenever he says or does something stupid. I'm not losing them, I never had them.

Well, you lose the populace as a whole. Not you personally, but the politicians pushing this accusation. They would reach a lot more people painting him as an elitist prick than a racist.

And his previous statements do paint him in a different light. That doesn't automatically make these ones racist.

Gethsemani:
Does "comes from a shit hole" tell us anything about the individuals wanting to enter the USA?

That they have the basic common sense and ambition to not want to live in a shit hole?

(but then this raises issues as to their judgement in wanting to live in North America.. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/01/un-extreme-poverty-america-special-rapporteur )

And this incident is reminiscent of his supporters struggle to understand the problem when he used the word "pussy"; the problem is not the language, it's the implication and intent behind the whole sentiment - that people who come from shithole countries don't contribute to and are not in the interests of the US, but people from nice white countries do and are.
The White House have confirmed this was exactly what he meant with this bullshit...
"Certain Washington politicians choose to fight for foreign countries, but President Trump will always fight for the American people," a White House spokesperson said in a statement to Jim Sciutto of CNN on Thursday. The White House went on to say Trump wants immigrants who can "contribute to our society, grow our economy and assimilate into our great nation."

Kwak:
(but then this raises issues as to their judgement in wanting to live in North America..

I don't think you're actually pushing this idea, but I still feel like it has to be said before one of the usual people jumps on this as an argument. One doesn't get to call these countries shitholes compared to the US then simultaneously say their judgement is bad because they're moving to shitholes in the US...

The "shit hole"comment isn't the worst part, it's not wanting immigrants from those countries that is the bad part. It's the most un-American thing a president has ever said, this country was made great by people leaving behind shittier countries for a better life in America
I bet that hypocritical windbag wouldn't consider the country that his ancestors immigrated from to be a shithole even though it was probably as much of a "shithole" as Haiti is now

Catnip1024:
Snip

Get those words out of my mouth. I never said anything like it and you know it. What I'm more or less saying is that everything that comes before but is usually done to soften something that they directly contradict. They mean next to nothing.

Do I? Do you have anything to back this up? Because people have been pointing out racist shit that he says for a year now, and the only people that have been "lost" are, like I said, the people who were always defending him. Dropping the racist angel isn't worth the 12 people who I would gain. And to be utterly frank, I have little patience for people who are more interesting in tone policing then the president of the United States acting like an asshole.

Uh, they kinda do. When you make a bunch of racist comments and then say all of Africa is a shit hole, I struggle to see the not racist implications.

erttheking:
Get those words out of my mouth. I never said anything like it and you know it. What I'm more or less saying is that everything that comes before but is usually done to soften something that they directly contradict. They mean next to nothing.

Do I? Do you have anything to back this up? Because people have been pointing out racist shit that he says for a year now, and the only people that have been "lost" are, like I said, the people who were always defending him. Dropping the racist angel isn't worth the 12 people who I would gain. And to be utterly frank, I have little patience for people who are more interesting in tone policing then the president of the United States acting like an asshole.

Uh, they kinda do. When you make a bunch of racist comments and then say all of Africa is a shit hole, I struggle to see the not racist implications.

Well you clearly need some better memes. The words before the but generally establish ground. If you discard them, you inherently misrepresent the argument to falsely attack someone. But no, let's use the snazzy yet inaccurate meme.

Nobody has tried taking a non-racial angle in criticising Trump. So you wouldn't know.

Well, the relative crapness of a place to live is easily backed up using statistics. It's not inherently racist. The issue here is the particularly not wanting people from third world countries. It's nothing to do with race, and everything to do with class, elitism and general snobbery.

Here's my problem with what Trump said. Yes, it is wrong of the President to use those words, but as this thread shows, a lot of people look at these countries as being, at the very least, backwater and violent. So, let's set aside Trump's wording, and dig a little deeper.

He is using the fact that those countries are "shithole" as a reason to kick out anyone who immigrated from those countries. To quote from the NBC source, Trump said "Why do we need more Haitians, take them out."

So, apparently, he is completely fine with, and even proud of, judging someone based on where they came from. That's right, if you come from a "shithole country", according to Trump, don't bother trying to immigrate in order to improve your life and get out of your shithole country. You can just stay there and starve, because Trump doesn't want your kind here.

bastardofmelbourne:

Saelune:
Republicans are bigots, thats a fact that continues to be. The republicans 'alarmed' by this are not alarmed because racism is bad, but because -they know they are racist- and know it makes them look bad when its that blatantly obvious.

There are actually Republicans out there who aren't racist, who sincerely believe in small government, the free market, fiscal conservatism and all the other race-neutral elements of Republican ideology.

The challenge presented by Trump is that he shatters the comfortable delusion that this was what the Republican party cared about. Trump has proven very clearly that what motivates most Republican voters isn't lower taxes, less government interference, or market deregulation. It's racism. Now all the respectable Republicans who just think that lower taxes is smart economics find themselves looking in the mirror and going "Am...am I the bad guy?"

No one can support the Republican party without supporting their bigotry. (Thats kinda how political view groups work)

Just as it is on any 'non homophobic Christian' to fix the problems of their own religion, it is up to 'non racist rebpulicans' to fix their party. If us non-Republicans have to 'fix it', its by getting rid of it altogether.

Catnip1024:

erttheking:
Get those words out of my mouth. I never said anything like it and you know it. What I'm more or less saying is that everything that comes before but is usually done to soften something that they directly contradict. They mean next to nothing.

Do I? Do you have anything to back this up? Because people have been pointing out racist shit that he says for a year now, and the only people that have been "lost" are, like I said, the people who were always defending him. Dropping the racist angel isn't worth the 12 people who I would gain. And to be utterly frank, I have little patience for people who are more interesting in tone policing then the president of the United States acting like an asshole.

Uh, they kinda do. When you make a bunch of racist comments and then say all of Africa is a shit hole, I struggle to see the not racist implications.

Well you clearly need some better memes. The words before the but generally establish ground. If you discard them, you inherently misrepresent the argument to falsely attack someone. But no, let's use the snazzy yet inaccurate meme.

Nobody has tried taking a non-racial angle in criticising Trump. So you wouldn't know.

Well, the relative crapness of a place to live is easily backed up using statistics. It's not inherently racist. The issue here is the particularly not wanting people from third world countries. It's nothing to do with race, and everything to do with class, elitism and general snobbery.

How about you just drop the "but" nonsense. Really, the bobbles and lace you put before the "but" don't actually add anything to the argument you're making. Every time someone starts an argument like that, I'm basically waiting for the but so that I can figure out what they're actually trying to say and they can stop wasting my time. You could take everything before "but" out of your argument and your argument would be relatively unchanged and less flabby.

I beg your pardon? There's plenty of non-racial criticisms in regards to Trump, as he's done plenty of non-racist horrible things too.

Statistics that neither you nor Trump have. When you make those statements without bringing any statistics to back things up, it's pretty racist. Because, as Gethsemani pointed out, you can be very wrong about statistics you don't check. Throwing all of Africa into one ball is racist, I really don't get why you have such a big issue with people pointing it out. I mean, really, look at this.

thebobmaster:
Here's my problem with what Trump said. Yes, it is wrong of the President to use those words, but as this thread shows, a lot of people look at these countries as being, at the very least, backwater and violent. So, let's set aside Trump's wording, and dig a little deeper.

He is using the fact that those countries are "shithole" as a reason to kick out anyone who immigrated from those countries. To quote from the NBC source, Trump said "Why do we need more Haitians, take them out."

So, apparently, he is completely fine with, and even proud of, judging someone based on where they came from. That's right, if you come from a "shithole country", according to Trump, don't bother trying to immigrate in order to improve your life and get out of your shithole country. You can just stay there and starve, because Trump doesn't want your kind here.

Please tell me more about how incredibly not racist this is.

Saelune:

bastardofmelbourne:

Saelune:
Republicans are bigots, thats a fact that continues to be. The republicans 'alarmed' by this are not alarmed because racism is bad, but because -they know they are racist- and know it makes them look bad when its that blatantly obvious.

There are actually Republicans out there who aren't racist, who sincerely believe in small government, the free market, fiscal conservatism and all the other race-neutral elements of Republican ideology.

The challenge presented by Trump is that he shatters the comfortable delusion that this was what the Republican party cared about. Trump has proven very clearly that what motivates most Republican voters isn't lower taxes, less government interference, or market deregulation. It's racism. Now all the respectable Republicans who just think that lower taxes is smart economics find themselves looking in the mirror and going "Am...am I the bad guy?"

No one can support the Republican party without supporting their bigotry. (Thats kinda how political view groups work)

Just as it is on any 'non homophobic Christian' to fix the problems of their own religion, it is up to 'non racist rebpulicans' to fix their party. If us non-Republicans have to 'fix it', its by getting rid of it altogether.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold it. Christianity has been around for, what, 2000 years? Somewhere around there? And yet, if anyone wants to not be homophobic, but still be Christian, they have to single-handedly change the entire organization from the inside, or else they are still homophobic even if they are fine with LGBT people? I think you may be seriously overestimating what one person can do.

Hell, would you also say it is up to the non-bombing Muslims to "fix the problems of their own religion"? Because if so...congratulations, you are basically saying the same thing Trump did during the last presidential debate.

thebobmaster:

Saelune:

bastardofmelbourne:

There are actually Republicans out there who aren't racist, who sincerely believe in small government, the free market, fiscal conservatism and all the other race-neutral elements of Republican ideology.

The challenge presented by Trump is that he shatters the comfortable delusion that this was what the Republican party cared about. Trump has proven very clearly that what motivates most Republican voters isn't lower taxes, less government interference, or market deregulation. It's racism. Now all the respectable Republicans who just think that lower taxes is smart economics find themselves looking in the mirror and going "Am...am I the bad guy?"

No one can support the Republican party without supporting their bigotry. (Thats kinda how political view groups work)

Just as it is on any 'non homophobic Christian' to fix the problems of their own religion, it is up to 'non racist rebpulicans' to fix their party. If us non-Republicans have to 'fix it', its by getting rid of it altogether.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold it. Christianity has been around for, what, 2000 years? Somewhere around there? And yet, if anyone wants to not be homophobic, but still be Christian, they have to single-handedly change the entire organization from the inside, or else they are still homophobic even if they are fine with LGBT people? I think you may be seriously overestimating what one person can do.

Hell, would you also say it is up to the non-bombing Muslims to "fix the problems of their own religion"? Because if so...congratulations, you are basically saying the same thing Trump did during the last presidential debate.

Trump doesnt want to give Muslims the chance to fix their religion.

And no, I dont actually like Islam...or Christianity...or ANY religion. Why? Most of them want to kill me or severely oppress me.

But I am not going to let Muslims be treated different than Christianity. If Trump was treating Muslims and Christians equally as good or bad, I'd be more ok with it. But too often abuse of Muslims is by...abusive Christians.

CyanCat, a user here, is Christian, but he doesnt buy into the bigotry of Christianity and is not afraid to oppose what he is told Christians are supposed to be. That is what I want.

Yes, there ARE Christians fighting to do what I am saying, my point isnt that they dont exist, my point is it is THEIR job to fix their religion, not ME.

But when I point this stuff out, I get reactions like you're giving me.

Religion sucks, but if it is going to persist, then we can atleast aknowledge the suckiness equally.

Nazis and the KKK are Christian terrorists. Why isnt Trump worried about them?

Saelune:

thebobmaster:

Saelune:
No one can support the Republican party without supporting their bigotry. (Thats kinda how political view groups work)

Just as it is on any 'non homophobic Christian' to fix the problems of their own religion, it is up to 'non racist rebpulicans' to fix their party. If us non-Republicans have to 'fix it', its by getting rid of it altogether.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold it. Christianity has been around for, what, 2000 years? Somewhere around there? And yet, if anyone wants to not be homophobic, but still be Christian, they have to single-handedly change the entire organization from the inside, or else they are still homophobic even if they are fine with LGBT people? I think you may be seriously overestimating what one person can do.

Hell, would you also say it is up to the non-bombing Muslims to "fix the problems of their own religion"? Because if so...congratulations, you are basically saying the same thing Trump did during the last presidential debate.

Trump doesnt want to give Muslims the chance to fix their religion.

And no, I dont actually like Islam...or Christianity...or ANY religion. Why? Most of them want to kill me or severely oppress me.

But I am not going to let Muslims be treated different than Christianity. If Trump was treating Muslims and Christians equally as good or bad, I'd be more ok with it. But too often abuse of Muslims is by...abusive Christians.

CyanCat, a user here, is Christian, but he doesnt buy into the bigotry of Christianity and is not afraid to oppose what he is told Christians are supposed to be. That is what I want.

Yes, there ARE Christians fighting to do what I am saying, my point isnt that they dont exist, my point is it is THEIR job to fix their religion, not ME.

But when I point this stuff out, I get reactions like you're giving me.

Religion sucks, but if it is going to persist, then we can atleast aknowledge the suckiness equally.

Nazis and the KKK are Christian terrorists. Why isnt Trump worried about them?

I'll take this from the top. For the first paragraph, fair point, although saying that they need to fix their religion at all is itself a bit intolerant.

Second paragraph...I think you are being a bit intolerant again and presumptive, but I don't know what experiences you've had, so I won't comment beyond that. I had a snarky comment here, but realized you said "most religions", not "All" as I had thought.

Third paragraph, fair enough, although I'd argue that religion shouldn't figure into anyone's treatments in either direction. If some is an asshole, then they are an asshole. If someone is a terrorist, call them a terrorist. No need to say "Muslim terrorist", regardless of what they claim as their motivation.

Fourth paragraph, fair enough. No qualifiers, that's a good way to look at things.

Fifth paragraph, that's not exactly unfair, but at the same time, a Catholic believes in different details than a Protestant, which is different still from the Amish, which is different still from the Mormoms/Latter-Day Saints...and so on. Basically, not all Christians follow the same dogma in specifics.

Sixth and seventh paragraphs...maybe the reason you are getting those reactions is because you are showing yourself extremely intolerant, but in the opposite direction of those you have a problem with. Insert "staring into the abyss" quote here.

Last paragraph...Last time I checked, there were no religious requirements to be a white supremacist. Unless you are saying every racist is Christian, and every Christian racist until proven otherwise. Which...seems to be quite the blanket statement.

Catnip1024:
But if we can treat this as being independent of race,

You are aware that Trump has a recent spate of racially insensitive at best, blatantly racist at worst incidents to his name I hope. Aside from the shitholes remark, he also is alleged to have said that all Haitians have AIDS and that Nigerian immigrants would never go back to their mud huts. There was also the two racist housing discrimination lawsuits, the birther thing, the Central Park 5, claimed a judge was biased against him because he was "Mexican," the Muslim travel ban, he hired a bunch of racists to his administration, the fines he had to pay for mistreating black employees at his casinos, his creepy tendency to refer to ethnic groups as monoliths (*the Jews, the Hispanics, the blacks, etc"), his insistence on calling Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas, he keeps retweeting white supremacists...

At what point are we finally permitted to call a spade a spade? The dude is a straight-up fucking racist.

thebobmaster:

Saelune:

thebobmaster:

Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold it. Christianity has been around for, what, 2000 years? Somewhere around there? And yet, if anyone wants to not be homophobic, but still be Christian, they have to single-handedly change the entire organization from the inside, or else they are still homophobic even if they are fine with LGBT people? I think you may be seriously overestimating what one person can do.

Hell, would you also say it is up to the non-bombing Muslims to "fix the problems of their own religion"? Because if so...congratulations, you are basically saying the same thing Trump did during the last presidential debate.

Trump doesnt want to give Muslims the chance to fix their religion.

And no, I dont actually like Islam...or Christianity...or ANY religion. Why? Most of them want to kill me or severely oppress me.

But I am not going to let Muslims be treated different than Christianity. If Trump was treating Muslims and Christians equally as good or bad, I'd be more ok with it. But too often abuse of Muslims is by...abusive Christians.

CyanCat, a user here, is Christian, but he doesnt buy into the bigotry of Christianity and is not afraid to oppose what he is told Christians are supposed to be. That is what I want.

Yes, there ARE Christians fighting to do what I am saying, my point isnt that they dont exist, my point is it is THEIR job to fix their religion, not ME.

But when I point this stuff out, I get reactions like you're giving me.

Religion sucks, but if it is going to persist, then we can atleast aknowledge the suckiness equally.

Nazis and the KKK are Christian terrorists. Why isnt Trump worried about them?

I'll take this from the top. For the first paragraph, fair point, although saying that they need to fix their religion at all is itself a bit intolerant.

Second paragraph...I think you are being a bit intolerant again and presumptive, but I don't know what experiences you've had, so I won't comment beyond that. I had a snarky comment here, but realized you said "most religions", not "All" as I had thought.

Third paragraph, fair enough, although I'd argue that religion shouldn't figure into anyone's treatments in either direction. If some is an asshole, then they are an asshole. If someone is a terrorist, call them a terrorist. No need to say "Muslim terrorist", regardless of what they claim as their motivation.

Fourth paragraph, fair enough. No qualifiers, that's a good way to look at things.

Fifth paragraph, that's not exactly unfair, but at the same time, a Catholic believes in different details than a Protestant, which is different still from the Amish, which is different still from the Mormoms/Latter-Day Saints...and so on. Basically, not all Christians follow the same dogma in specifics.

Sixth and seventh paragraphs...maybe the reason you are getting those reactions is because you are showing yourself extremely intolerant, but in the opposite direction of those you have a problem with. Insert "staring into the abyss" quote here.

Last paragraph...Last time I checked, there were no religious requirements to be a white supremacist. Unless you are saying every racist is Christian, and every Christian racist until proven otherwise. Which...seems to be quite the blanket statement.

Christianity is bad "No, the religion isnt bad, just people in it"

Christians are bad "No, its the religion thats bad, not the people"

Nazis and the KKK developed out of Christian groups and with Christian dogmas. They may be 'tolerant' of less Christian based racists, but the KKK used to hate Catholics back when they were pure protestant. And yes, the KKK were originally strictly protestant.

Im not going to feel bad for hating religions that hated me first. No, I am not going to go out and 'oppress' anyone by their religion, religion is too ingraned in humanity. But I am not going to sit here and take their abuse, then take more abuse cause I oppose the abuse they started giving me before! Thats unfair bullshit.

Saelune:
megasnip

I just cut it down because the quote tree was getting a little long. I had a fair bit to do with that, admittedly.

First off, I agree that judging the entire group by the actions of some people is, for the most part, unfair. That goes for Muslims and Christians alike. I've had problems with certain religious groups. Anyone openly LGBT has. But it's because that particular religious person was an intolerant dick, not because of their religious beliefs, persay.

Essentially, I look at it like this. Does someone become a dick because they are Christian, or were they a dick that chose Christianity? There is a small, but crucial difference there.

Also, no sarcasm, thanks for the KKK history lesson. I actually learned something new about them. Nazism, though...I'm pretty sure that developed out of Adolf Hitler's dogma, and his religious stances are...contested, to say the least. Many historians believe his religious beliefs were "Whatever gets the people on my side".

If someone attacks you, you have the full right to defend yourself, and I understand that. On the other hand, I've never been a believer in the "guilt by association" angle. I've known too many people that were dicks...at least, I thought they were, before it turned out they were fundamentally good people that were in with a bad crowd and didn't have enough self-esteem to stand up for what is right.

ETA: When I say "For the most part" I judge the person, not the group, I look at it as "What is the primary goal of this group?" The primary goal for Christians is, in essence, "peace on Earth, and goodwill towards men." While there are certainly Christians who don't follow that, the problem is with those Christians, not Christianity as a whole. Now, take a group like the KKK, whose goal is "Down with the darkies!"...yeah, that's the point when just being a member is a sign that something is wrong with you.

thebobmaster:

Saelune:
megasnip

I just cut it down because the quote tree was getting a little long. I had a fair bit to do with that, admittedly.

First off, I agree that judging the entire group by the actions of some people is, for the most part, unfair. That goes for Muslims and Christians alike. I've had problems with certain religious groups. Anyone openly LGBT has. But it's because that particular religious person was an intolerant dick, not because of their religious beliefs, persay.

Essentially, I look at it like this. Does someone become a dick because they are Christian, or were they a dick that chose Christianity? There is a small, but crucial difference there.

Also, no sarcasm, thanks for the KKK history lesson. I actually learned something new about them. Nazism, though...I'm pretty sure that developed out of Adolf Hitler's dogma, and his religious stances are...contested, to say the least. Many historians believe his religious beliefs were "Whatever gets the people on my side".

If someone attacks you, you have the full right to defend yourself, and I understand that. On the other hand, I've never been a believer in the "guilt by association" angle. I've known too many people that were dicks...at least, I thought they were, before it turned out they were fundamentally good people that were in with a bad crowd and didn't have enough self-esteem to stand up for what is right.

ETA: When I say "For the most part" I judge the person, not the group, I look at it as "What is the primary goal of this group?" The primary goal for Christians is, in essence, "peace on Earth, and goodwill towards men." While there are certainly Christians who don't follow that, the problem is with those Christians, not Christianity as a whole. Now, take a group like the KKK, whose goal is "Down with the darkies!"...yeah, that's the point when just being a member is a sign that something is wrong with you.

Guilty by association kinda is a thing when its associating with a specific ideological organization. Being black or gay doesnt mean you believe x y or z, but being part of a religion or political group does. So when a religion says 'We believe this' and you're part of that religion, then you either believe that, or arent really part of that religion.

One problem with religion is people forget that. Hell, most of the 'good' people of a religion, are probably people who arent actually part of that religion in any tangible way. How many people identify as Christian but dont go to Church, or practice the faith beyond celebrating Christmas, Easter, and having weddings and funerals in a church? Part of my own family is like that, but we are certainly not religious.

erttheking:
Statistics that neither you nor Trump have.

Statistics I didn't use because I chose not to turn this into a slagging places off thread. Because I have nothing against the people from those places, despite not wanting to go there.

But if you insist.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate-per-million-people

Note - El Salvador second. You could argue that Puerto Rico being so high is a strike against US territories, but otherwise there are no "western" nations other than Russia and Moldova until you get down to Haiti in 80ish (I'm counting Greenland as a territory). The rest is made up of a decent amount of African nations.

Likewise, if you look at standards of living: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

All well outside the top bracket. Haiti right down near the bottom.

It's funny how people crying about not providing statistics generally don't have any statistics themselves. It's almost like they are trying to avoid actually bringing the statistics into things.

These countries aren't great. That's a harsh reality that people have to recognise and accept. Pretending otherwise just to spite Trump is counter-productive.

thebobmaster:

I just cut it down because the quote tree was getting a little long. I had a fair bit to do with that, admittedly.

First off, I agree that judging the entire group by the actions of some people is, for the most part, unfair. That goes for Muslims and Christians alike. I've had problems with certain religious groups. Anyone openly LGBT has. But it's because that particular religious person was an intolerant dick, not because of their religious beliefs, persay.

You know, one of the key reasons for an incredibly large rise of worldwide anti-LGBTQ attitudes was British colonialism, and Queen Victoria's resurgent crux of nationalism and Protestantism hand in hand, right?

Things like the Holocaust was more than just racial... and while you have German politicians and the like screaming "NEVER AGAIN!" when the Holocaust is brought up, yet ominiously fucking silent on making sure the Third Reich's actions against the LGBTQ community don't seem to generate anywhere near the same public condemnation or public recognition of their occurrence. I mean, it took until 2002 for theGerman government to give a formal apology for the Gay Holocaust. That's only 57 years after the fall of the Third Reich, and 74 years after open persecution of the community ...

Hard to imagine that 'Nazis did bad things to you and we will never repeat those mistakes' would require such a lengthy amount of time to say.

The resurgent anti-LGBTQ persecutions in places like Uganda was because American evangelicals went there to stoke the flames of religiosity in order to push through acts of bigoted barbarism even now. Pretty sure Christianity doesn't gets a free pass at this point.

Pretty sure that there's incredibly good reasons to be suspicious of any resurgent Christian religiosity.

There's people in Britain that had a criminal record for being gay, as until 2017. As in a they're felons for deciding to have some butt fun and apparently there were still a large number of politicians that seem utterly fine thinking it should have been kept that way.

How about Christians promise us it will never happen again, at least? Put it down on paper ... sign it in fucking blood, first ... hang it on the wall of every courthouse and parliament wall ... then maybe we'll go from there. Obvious exaggeration, but honestly I wouldn't mind settling on an inviolable promise of "Never again."

Just hang it someplace your chancellor/Prime Minister/President/whatever can see it on a daily basis?

Which doesn't seem like much of a fucking stretch of the imagination that governments could provide, but apparently not. Pretty sure we're owed one by pretty much every extant country thus far...

DrownedAmmet:
The "shit hole"comment isn't the worst part, it's not wanting immigrants from those countries that is the bad part. It's the most un-American thing a president has ever said, this country was made great by people leaving behind shittier countries for a better life in America
I bet that hypocritical windbag wouldn't consider the country that his ancestors immigrated from to be a shithole even though it was probably as much of a "shithole" as Haiti is now

Pretty much this. Him calling them shit holes isn't a good image on the international stage, among other problems with the crap that came out of his mouth, but that's just part of it. The States are referred to as the "land of opportunity", a country that was built and expanded by immigrants searching for a better life. He was saying that he doesn't want people from those countries, that he doesn't want people to come here to try to improve their lives. He wants people who already are in a good situation. Now you could just ask "well doesn't that just make sense?" to that, but in that case I suppose the whole land of opportunity schtick is done and dusted then huh? I'll agree that what he said is fundamentally un-American and that's a term I don't think I've ever used before. What he said spits in the face of what is basically our motto. Although, I imagine people have forgotten what that term even means anymore. I imagine he thinks "land of opportunity" means that it's a land of opportunity for those already here. In fact I imagine quite a lot of people think that way at this point.

Catnip1024:
These countries aren't great. That's a harsh reality that people have to recognise and accept. Pretending otherwise just to spite Trump is counter-productive.

People who are arguing that these countries don't need help are wrong. They certainly do.

But what people are taking offense to is the offensive tone that Trump has to speak in at all times.

"These countries need help to be functioning and contributing nations to the global society, and our part of people of the world is to help however we can. Whether it be welcoming a small percentage to our land or aiding in the restructuring needed for their own livelihood"

vs

"The country is a shithole, people who live there all have AIDS or live in Huts, and I rather a different demographic from other countries come here instead of them."

That seems to be the main topic of contention. As much as I detest the man, as the President he represents me as an American. What he says doesn't follow suit with what I believe as an American. Or, more importantly, how an American should act. I believed in the America that stands up, holds itself to a better standard, and helps those in need. I believe in the powerful helping the weak, for that's the only purpose of power in my eyes: Making life better.

In a way, this is the same thing Trump and Republicans do to Black and Poor America. "God, your place is shitty. Come together, pull yourself up by your bootstraps even though you have no resource on your land (if you did, we would have driven you off and taken it over), look nicer, act like we want you to act, and do it without any aid from us. Not by our help, but our judgment and condemnation."

I hate it when it's done to our fellow citizens. I am outraged when it's done to people who have even less than our fellow Citizens.

Catnip1024:

erttheking:
Statistics that neither you nor Trump have.

Statistics I didn't use because I chose not to turn this into a slagging places off thread. Because I have nothing against the people from those places, despite not wanting to go there.

But if you insist.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate-per-million-people

Note - El Salvador second. You could argue that Puerto Rico being so high is a strike against US territories, but otherwise there are no "western" nations other than Russia and Moldova until you get down to Haiti in 80ish (I'm counting Greenland as a territory). The rest is made up of a decent amount of African nations.

Likewise, if you look at standards of living: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

All well outside the top bracket. Haiti right down near the bottom.

It's funny how people crying about not providing statistics generally don't have any statistics themselves. It's almost like they are trying to avoid actually bringing the statistics into things.

These countries aren't great. That's a harsh reality that people have to recognise and accept. Pretending otherwise just to spite Trump is counter-productive.

This is why I call you a Trump supporter.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

thebobmaster:

I just cut it down because the quote tree was getting a little long. I had a fair bit to do with that, admittedly.

First off, I agree that judging the entire group by the actions of some people is, for the most part, unfair. That goes for Muslims and Christians alike. I've had problems with certain religious groups. Anyone openly LGBT has. But it's because that particular religious person was an intolerant dick, not because of their religious beliefs, persay.

You know, one of the key reasons for an incredibly large rise of worldwide anti-LGBTQ attitudes was British colonialism, and Queen Victoria's resurgent crux of nationalism and Protestantism hand in hand, right?

Things like the Holocaust was more than just racial... and while you have German politicians and the like screaming "NEVER AGAIN!" when the Holocaust is brought up, yet ominiously fucking silent on making sure the Third Reich's actions against the LGBTQ community don't seem to generate anywhere near the same public condemnation or public recognition of their occurrence. I mean, it took until 2002 for theGerman government to give a formal apology for the Gay Holocaust. That's only 57 years after the fall of the Third Reich, and 74 years after open persecution of the community ...

Hard to imagine that 'Nazis did bad things to you and we will never repeat those mistakes' would require such a lengthy amount of time to say.

The resurgent anti-LGBTQ persecutions in places like Uganda was because American evangelicals went there to stoke the flames of religiosity in order to push through acts of bigoted barbarism even now. Pretty sure Christianity doesn't gets a free pass at this point.

Pretty sure that there's incredibly good reasons to be suspicious of any resurgent Christian religiosity.

There's people in Britain that had a criminal record for being gay, as until 2017. As in a they're felons for deciding to have some butt fun and apparently there were still a large number of politicians that seem utterly fine thinking it should have been kept that way.

How about Christians promise us it will never happen again, at least? Put it down on paper ... sign it in fucking blood, first ... hang it on the wall of every courthouse and parliament wall ... then maybe we'll go from there. Obvious exaggeration, but honestly I wouldn't mind settling on an inviolable promise of "Never again."

Just hang it someplace your chancellor/Prime Minister/President/whatever can see it on a daily basis?

Which doesn't seem like much of a fucking stretch of the imagination that governments could provide, but apparently not. Pretty sure we're owed one by pretty much every extant country thus far...

Fair enough. I didn't think religion was the only cause of anti-LGBT attitudes, but you make a fair case. I still think it's wrong to say every Christian is like that, but I can understand more why people think Christianity as a whole is out to get them if they are LGBT. I knew about all the LGBT people killed in the Holocaust, for example, but wasn't aware that, apparently, that had been going on even before Hitler was in power.

This will probably be the last post I make on this particular topic. It seems I don't know anything about this, let alone as much as I thought I did, so I'll just keep my mouth shut on anything between LGBT and religion.

Samtemdo8:
snip

generals3:
snip

Whitbane:
snip

The Lunatic:
snip

I snipped all those posts I'm quoting because this response applies equally to all of you and anyone else in this thread who's perplexed over why this comment is a bad thing.

The problem is not really that Trump called Haiti et al a shithole. Haiti is a shithole. It got hit by an apocalyptic earthquake just a few years ago, and it's never been super rich to begin with. Why do you think people want to leave?

The reason the comment is racist is because Trump called it a shithole to justify not accepting immigrants from there. He's not saying it's a shithole because of economic or ecological circumstances beyond the control of its citizens. He's not actually talking about the country at all, he's talking about the people. He's saying that its inhabitants are undesirable migrants because it's a shithole, and that accepting any migrants from Haiti or El Salvador or Liberia or wherever the fuck will only work to America's detriment because they come from a shithole country. If he thought they were good and innocent and hard-working people who had the misfortune of being stuck in a shithole, he'd want to get them out! If you saw a nugget of gold in a toilet, wouldn't you try to dig it out? But Trump doesn't see gold; he sees a nugget of something else entirely.

It's not about the countries; it's about the people in the countries and whether Donald Trump thinks they're good people. He does not. Donald Trump thinks they're shit people, and he wants them to stay in the shithole.

I mean, this is who he is. This is how he's always been. I could take a really generous interpretation of his statement and say that he was merely being elitist and just happened to pick on some countries full of brown people while stating his preference for a country that just happened to be full of white people, but the reality is that he's been acting like this for a long time. In the 1970s, he got sued by the Justice Department for not renting to black people. This is the same principle in operation. He doesn't want those kinds of people in his apartment block, or his neighbourhood, or his country.

His ignorance is really astounding. Like, he's genuinely perplexed as to why America keeps accepting all these brown people instead of these nice Norwegian people, and he doesn't get why the Norwegians don't want to come to America. Why the fuck would they? No-one leaves a prosperous, safe country like Norway to go to a place like America. That's not how America was built! America's genius has always been that it takes migrants from shitholes around the world - from Ireland, from Poland, from Germany and Italy and Africa and Mexico and Korea and the Philippines - and gives them a second chance and a decent shot at prosperity. It's like demographic alchemy. America turns lead into gold.

bastardofmelbourne:
America's genius has always been that it takes migrants from shitholes around the world - from Ireland, from Poland, from Germany and Italy and Africa and Mexico and Korea and the Philippines - and gives them a second chance and a decent shot at prosperity. It's like demographic alchemy. America turns lead into gold.

Points for the metaphor. And I'm going to second the rest of the post in general. It's not his vulgarity, it's what motivates his vulgarity. The Rude Pundit is of a similar opinion.

bastardofmelbourne:

The reason the comment is racist is because Trump called it a shithole to justify not accepting immigrants from there.

As someone who works with Haitian immigrants every singe day I can assure you that Trump is 100% right in that assessment. They aren't bad people by any means, hell compared to most black communities they're probably got the least violent one that's most willing to integrate. But working with them made me understand that things like work qualification is only a thing immigrants from Europe, the US, Australia and East Asia have to have, because their skills are so low you need to make a new category because the unskilled 9th grade dropouts who just dropped out last year are given responsibility over them for a reason.

Canada and the US need immigration from places like Haiti the same way we need another hole in our budgets. Most of them are not skilled to a degree that it's worth the devaluation of worker's wages they create by being here, and those few that are are typically harming Haiti by virtue of being here because they aren't improving their own country.

What Haiti needs is an actual economic action plan that'll make the country go through a South Korea or Taiwan like transformation, only problem is on one's willing to flip the bill or be the major nation backing the type of dictatorship you need to get that ball rolling. It's an all around shitshow and that won't be made better with immigration, on the contrary any immigrants worth our having would be a significant detriment to them.

Whitbane:
I don't care about their developments.

No one would ever choose to live in an African country over any western nation.

Here's an interesting question. Why the actual fuck does this matter?

We aren't talking about deciding where to live. We're not figuring out where to buy a fucking holiday home, are we? The context of this comment is which countries people should be allowed to emigrate to the United States from. It's not relevant how these countries fare on any random-ass standard of living index, if anything that's a perfect argument as to why people from these countries should be given special consideration and the opportunity to emigrate and to leverage whatever skills and qualities they have elsewhere.

You can masturbate yourself into a sematic froth all you want about what precisely the definition of a "shithole country" is, but it's not going to change what's fundamentally wrong with this statement. What's wrong is the inability to understand that "shithole countries" are not bad places because their inhabitants lack personal qualities, or skills, or are inherently racially inferior. No ammount of excessive reaching for good faith or internet refereeing is going to ammeliorate how deeply fucked up it is for someone in a position of power to fail to grasp this.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here