You Are Still Crying Wolf

1. Kudos to him for putting in the "Edit" about the inaccuracies in exit-poll data, but it's a really big "Edit" and casts doubt on most of his initial premise.

2. No mention of Bannon? This article was written yesterday, and we knew Trump had chosen Bannon to be his right-hand man long before then.

3. No mention that Trump believes that an American judge of Mexican heritage can't judge him? Of the birther claims? Or of playing to white fears with completely make-believe images of "inner cities" being war zones?

4. The jiu jitsu over saying that banning "All Muslims" from entering the country isn't really racism because "most Muslims are white(ish)" is nonsense.

5. And yes, it is special pleading. The author goes out of his way to explain things in a way that is unique to Trump:

> 15. Don’t we know that Trump supports racist violence because, when some of his supporters beat up a Latino man, he just said they were “passionate”?

> When Trump was asked for comment, he tweeted “Love the fact that the small groups of protesters last night have passion for our great country”.

> I have no idea how his mind works and am frankly boggled by all of this, but calling violent protesters “passionate” just seems to be a thing of his. I think this is actually a pretty important point. Trump is a weird person.

Oh. Ok. He doesn't support beating up people. He's just "weird."

----

Edit: Also the author seems to have confused two statements of "passion." Trump's tweet about "small groups of protesters" was made just the other day. Instead, after the beating up of the Latino man, he said

"I will say, the people that are following me are very passionate, they love this country, they want this country to be great again."

Note that not only is he calling those men "passionate," he is essentially justifying their actions by bringing up their "love of country," which is particularly telling in the case of men beating up an immigrant.

At least a couple of the other arguments also have problems. He tweeted twice about the protests:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/11/do...

The first one was dismissive, the second one was supportive. Why not discuss them both?

The other one that jumped out at me was the taco bowl. I'm pretty sure lots of racists like tacos, tacos are delicious. So liking tacos doesn't say a whole lot. I'd go so far as to say that ham-fisted pandering using a taco bowl says more than liking tacos.

And the taco-bowl picture is captioned with "I love Hispanics!"

Most people don't talk this way, but everything he says about minorities lumps them together: "The Hispanics." "The Blacks." "The Muslims."

> “I have a great relationship with the blacks, I’ve always had a great relationship with the blacks.” [1]

> “The Hispanics are going to get those jobs, and they’re going to love Trump.” [2]

> “I’m doing good for the Muslims,” [3]

[1] http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/04/14/6471219-trump-... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-border_us_5... [3] http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/09/politics/donald-trump-don-lemo...

"If you classify people into ethnic groups, you're a racist" is waaaay too powerful to use to prove "Trump is a racist". Unless you're willing to accept that pretty much everyone is a racist. Which perhaps some people are ready to accept, but it's not a very useful classification at that point.

I'll speak to this point, because it's subtle but important.

The essence of racism is the refusal or inability to understand others as fully human. It's possible to be racist without hate.

My father didn't hate Chinese people, he liked them and respected them, but he couldn't quite see them as the same as him in the fundamental way. He said once, "Chinamen make good citizens."

When I visited New York City, I noticed that the races got along but self-segregated. I went to a large business cafe and all the tables were each one "race": Blacks, Whites, Asians, Hispanics.

Growing up in San Francisco my friends and all the people I knew were pretty eclectic: Hawaiian-born Chinese, Mexican-American Mormon, Japanese/White (his mom called herself a "rice-clackah" ("cracker" is a racial pejorative for White, and Japanese people stereotypically have trouble pronouncing the 'r' sound) she loved scandalizing people with that...), Black bi-sexual, etc..., and none of us every really "tripped" on it. We were all just people hanging out together.

Like Sesame Street, we were the real thing of what you see on Sesame Street.

I don't want to be all East Coast v. West Coast, but I definitely feel weird when I hear people talk about "I love the Blacks."

"BLACK people" vs. "black PEOPLE"

To quote Bob Marley (quoting Haile Selassie): "Until the colour of a man's skin / Is of no more significance / than the colour of his eyes"

And here's Albert Einstein: "A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

That's true and all, but classifying people into ethnic groups is not evidence that any of what you said is true about a specific person. I don't think it disproves anything about what I said... if you're going to say that classifying people into ethnic groups is sufficient to call someone racist, you've made everyone racist. Which may be true for that definition of racism, but it's then not useful to say that Trump is racist in that sense. I don't think most people are looking to use definitions of racism that classify Hillary and the entire Democratic political strategy as "racist". Applying that definition selectively is just more wolf-crying.

First, let me say that reading the OP has eased my worry that the President-Elect "is racist" (at least no more than typical, which unfortunately is still pretty racist, but let that pass for the sake of discussion.) I no longer think that Trump is racist in the sense that he hates non-whites. (I'm also really annoyed that the media I frequent did such a poor job portraying the guy in this regard, but that's a whole 'nother issue.)

I do still believe that he, and most people, are racist in the sense of having a hard time relating to "The Other" as another aspect or manifestation of "Self". But here we are getting far from the political and into deeper interpersonal relations. In other words, this is something that can't really be addressed by laws, so it is formally outside the bailiwick of the POTUS. However, I would still rather the POTUS be someone conducive to the greater good. Trump seems out of his depth here, as in so many other areas.

Having trouble relating to "The Other" is pretty universal this election cycle. Like the multitudes who believe that everyone who supports Trump is a Racist.

The standard, and in my opinion most useful, definition of a racist is "a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another" not "having having trouble relating to people of different backgrounds". That's not racist, its just human.