Snapchat To Stop Promoting Trump's Content (nbcnews.com) 254
Snapchat said Wednesday it would no longer promote President Donald Trump's content in its Discover section, a move that brings the messaging company closer to Twitter's approach in the ongoing debate over political speech. From a report: The company said in a statement that it would not "amplify voices who incite racial violence." Snapchat's Discover section typically features content from news organizations, brands, celebrities and sometimes politicians. The president's account remains visible on the platform, and anyone can follow the account for updates. Snapchat's change will remove Trump from the Discover section. "We are not currently promoting the president's content on Snapchat's Discover platform," the company said. "We will not amplify voices who incite racial violence and injustice by giving them free promotion on Discover. Racial violence and injustice have no place in our society and we stand together with all who seek peace, love, equality, and justice in America."
Seems fair (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems fair that companies should choose who to promote or not... a different case than blocking outright.
I'm honestly surprised they ever were promoting Trump content???
And then I am secondarily surprised there even IS Trump content on Snapchat???
And then lastly I am simply happy I don't use Snapchat.
Re:Seems fair (Score:5, Insightful)
You sure seem to want to tell people what to do with their private property. I tell you what, I've got a crappy old Mazda pickup, leaks oil and transmission fluid, and I'm going to park it in your drive way. You know, because apparently you should have no right to dictate the uses of your property.
Re: Seems fair (Score:2)
The correct comparison is between platforms and publishers. We don't need a car analogy. The analogy is already built in to the question.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The law affords the protection it does.
Look at Congress right now, and look at what it's likely to look like at after November. Even if Trump wins, he's not going to get the CDA amended. And yes, this is private property. The investors built that site, a bunch of white nationalist goons did not. The Board and Senior management get to decide what the content of the site is, and you as a user agree to the terms of use, which are probably insanely broad, but you should have probably read them.
You do understand
Re: (Score:2)
A man/woman should be able to beat their spouse in the privacy of their own home, right? Because it is their "property" and they can "do" whatever they want with it. (please note Heavy Sarcasm)
I mean, if people are going to set up strawmen to knock down (i.e. ignoring all sorts of context and laws) then why not reply with same level of ridiculousness? Its almost like they take logical fallacies as being acceptable rhetorically.
Re: (Score:2)
S230 has nothing to do with publisher vs platform, this is a false narrative.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/... [theverge.com]
And it was originally intended to be used to allow providers to self censor as they see fit.
Here is the take on 'neutrality' from one of the authors of the bill: https://reason.com/2019/06/25/... [reason.com]
It is working exactly as intended.
If you don't like it, perhaps propose how it should be rewritten. Any weakening of it seems to destroy the free speech rights of providers and destroy sites like slashdot, r
Re: (Score:2)
Basically the goons of society want a free ride to distribute their garbage. They've been beating their head against this for quite some time, but let's be blunt, Congress isn't going to change the rules. Right now the House wouldn't give Trump the time of day over this, and I have my doubts that there enough Republican Senators to even consider amending this part of the CDA. What Trump does get is all his lesser goons all whipped up, which serves his purposes. He needs the mantle of victimhood, it's absolu
Re: (Score:3)
I did read it.
I guess you didn't, or maybe I am just way smarter than you.
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2)Civil liability: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or u
Re: (Score:3)
What do you imagine the odds of Pelosi or the Democrat-dominated House considering a repeal or amendment of S230 of the CDA?
This is another example of how Trump pulls levers that don't connect to anything. He talks big, and who knows, maybe he is a complete idiot who doesn't understand the constitutional limitations of the Presidency, but it's more likely that he knows he can't do it, but he knows his self-righteous followers will lap it up. Like the morons that think because he poses with a Bible that he h
Re: (Score:2)
No, it doesn't. Please read section 230 before commenting. Online content providers can editorialize user posts, remove them, or add disclaimers and that specifically does not mean they are liable for said content.
It's like online content providers are a private mall. You can go in the mall and talk. If you scream, or harass other customers, the mall is free to kick you out. Under no circumstance is the mall liable for the things you say, even if they let you stay. And that is, quite frankly, how it should
Re: (Score:2)
Can we sue when "fact checkers" label something "false" when it isn't? Who do we sue?
Recently, I saw a "Fact Check" that strawmaned the post they were fact checking, NEVER actually showing the thing they were fact checking.
"Why is this person is wearing an earpiece that is popular with law enforcement agencies?" was labeled "false", when the picture clearly shows an earpiece that is favored among law enforcement. In fact, I've never seen anyone wear one that wasn't "government" (or "paramilitary" *). The st
Re: (Score:2)
You can sue for any reason you like. In this case, you'd lose because free speech includes the right to lie, as long as the lie is not also slanderous.
Fox News could not do what it does if that were not the case.
Re:Seems fair (Score:4, Informative)
So, why aren't you calling out the NYT's editorial board with their "1619 Project"?
Re: (Score:3)
Hate speech isn't protected speech.
Yes, it is.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You don't have to. You send cops into a neighborhood with orders to shoot, who do you think gets shot?
This is the greatest bonanza for shit stirrers there's ever been in the history of this country, but you think it's mostly people doing it to their own neighborhoods? People don't want to arson [suntimes.com] in their neighborhood, or the stores they rely on trashed and looted [newsweek.com]. Even most people furious with the cops don't want to see a cop killed [whas11.com] or all the consequences that will bring down on them.
No, if you're a sh
Re: (Score:2)
This is the greatest bonanza for shit stirrers there's ever been in the history of this country...
Excluding that whole "civil war" thing that happened in the 1800s.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, what about protesters who aren't rioting? What about people who happen to be standing in the wrong place? Do the cops have magic bullets now that stop when they get past the bad guys?
Escalating force never ends well for the cops. Killing anyone unnecessarily in response to protests, even riots, that are in response to an unjustified killing won't end well. Police are not sized or trained to be an occupying army; they're a force designed to "police by consent". Turning US cities into Iraq is no
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Realistically, the only thing the protesters are accomplishing is being cover for the rioters. Given that reality, I don't have much sympathy for the protesters, either.
Re:Why so racist? (Score:4, Insightful)
So you must not protest because you're just a shield for rioters.
I wonder what would be the reaction if China used that line of reasoning considering Hong Kong.
Re: (Score:2)
Fucking Rioters get shot.
Only the ones who are fucking? ... are you jealous that the rioters are having lots of sex and didn't invite you to the orgy? ... or do you just hate sex in general so much you want to shoot people who are doing it? ... wait a minute ... Saint Augustine? ... is that you?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, a little bit, yeah.
First off, let's remove your euphemism. Fucking Rioters don't get shot. "Fucking Rioters get killed." Because that's what really happens. I know using the 'K' word makes you feel bad, but let's call a spade a spade, shall we?
Also, imagine an unarmed person steals something of yours and you kill them--again, no euphemisms here. You can't really claim self-defense--they were unarmed and not attacking you. That could very well be considered murder--at the very least manslaughter.
Re: (Score:2)
Another person who doesn't believe in unintended consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, a person who thinks that unintended consequences only apply to other people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"...at worst..."
Wow.
Stop pretending POTUS is a helpless victim (Score:5, Insightful)
Thing is, that means they're acting as PUBLISHERS, not PLATFORMS.
to me the Twitter case of purposefully attaching warnings to Trump tweets while letting thousands of riot-promoting tweets elsewhere go un-remarked on is pretty clearly someone trying to control content so they are effectively a publisher.
So the most famous and one of the most prolific twitter user gets fact checked, but less famous people no one has heard of don't, so they're a publisher? Next are you going to call that an anti-"conservative" bias or some nonsense?
It's incredibly dumb to compare the President of the United States to a bunch of nobodies who have nowhere near the followers. He has a huge influence and thus if you think he is inciting violence, it is imperative to fact check him, more so than some rando who says something worse in support of antifa. I can shout out all the threats to groups I want...I'm a nobody. I am not the commander-in-chief of the world's most powerful military. Twitter is not going to devote resources to fact check me me, with my tiny number of followers
And let's be clear, "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" is very much a violent threat to protestors. It's not a public service announcement, everyone knows what may happen when a gun is pointed at them. That phrase has a clear history of racism and no one believes Trump didn't realize he was riling up the racist portion of his base with such words.
Stop playing the victim. It's pathetic and no one has pity for conservatives who feel mistreated because the facts don't line up with their worldview. You're threatening violence. "Conservatives" are marching up to the state capital of MI with AR-15s to complain about social distancing laws. Those aren't there for decoration, they're there as a reminder you can end our lives if you so wish it. It's a violent threat and the civilized world is sick of it. Keep behaving like that and don't be too surprised when more platforms get sick of it and sanction such behavior.
No one likes an asshole brandishing a weapon, reminding everyone he has the power to end their life.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Someone set up an account that does nothing but tweet the exact same things a Trump does, word for word. It got banned today.
Attaching warnings and fact checking are Twitter's attempt to deal with the fact that Trump breaks their rules and would be banned if not for the public interest aspect. They are actually giving him a lot more freedom to use their service than normal people get.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, causing damage to others properties, roads, ... a.k.a. the "looting" is illegal.
Now in practice, the looting always mixes with the protest, so that "when the shooting starts", the protesters also get shot at.
So instead, the way the protest should be handled is :
1. Admit there is a deep problem in police practice and address it. Not really what happened.
2. Work together with protesters to maintain peace and order and avoid things going south. That means organizers and Police working hand-in-hand to
Re: (Score:2)
Are you trying to say that when Trump says "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" he doesn't mean "when we see looting in the protest, the police will start shooting" but "when the looting starts, looters also shoot" ? Sure, that's an interpretation. Not sure everyone would agree though.
As for the statistics, you can also look at the numbers of killed by the police in the US and compare to other countries. The fact that everyone is allowed to carry a gun certainly doesn't help police officers to no
Re: (Score:2)
One is a crime. The other is a legally protected form of free expression of a grievance to the government./quote
Legally protected form of free expression? Yeah right. Tell that to the protesters that were tear gassed just so that Trump could virtue signal with his absurd bible photo op.
Re: (Score:3)
They were, it was all on live stream
Every bit of violence and looting was streamed to a dozen different woke twitch and youtube channels and all that will become evidence in future trials.
They'll be rounded up and punished and the media won't mention any of it
The people who funded all the rioting? The feds have some legal tools to go after them now, we'll see if they use it
Re: (Score:2)
You said it better than I ever could have, but I'm less on the fence about it than you are. Snapchat is saying that they're not going to expend energy to make our President's submissions stand out. They've decided not to highlight his content. Twitter decided that they would unilaterally change his submission. I'm assuming that if I had ever had a Snapchat account, I could still go and view the President's submissions in the exact way he submitted them.
Re: (Score:3)
Twitter decided that they would unilaterally change his submission. I'm assuming that if I had ever had a Snapchat account, I could still go and view the President's submissions in the exact way he submitted them.
As far as I know, Twitter does not change one letter in Trump's submissions, but only adds a link to a fact-checking site where people who are not too stupid to think can, if they want to, find out where Trump lied.
So you can still go to Twitter and view the President's submissions in the exact way he submitted them.
OTOH, I don't (even want to) use Twitter, so I might be wrong. -- In this I differ from Trump, who would never admit he could even possibly be wrong, and his devout followers, who, If Trump woul
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Section 230 says "It literally doesn't matter online, content providers are never liable for user posts."
Just like a mall is not liable for any speech you make in that mall. Even if the mall allows some speech and forbids other speech. Even if the mall comments on the speech you make. It is never liable, unless it has a business agreement, and money changes hands.
You are just engaging in wishful thinking, hoping that some law will force private property owners to give up their own free speech and property r
Re: (Score:2)
It's been decided. Snapchat has a first amendment right to editorialize however they want. That's how free speech works, you say some dumb shit and the rest of us are free to call you on it. Do you want to censor Snapchat by saying they can't respond to user's posts?
Yeah, I'm sure you do. Rules for thee and not for me, amiright?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No it will not go back anywhere. You are so very obviously not a lawyer, nor even familiar with the way laws work. If you want this law changed, petition your representative.
Re: (Score:2)
S230 makes your point invalid. It specifically says:
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
So do you actually have a point?
Trump promoted racial violence (Score:2, Insightful)
When he said ... ?
"MAGA loves the black people"? What a monster, talking about love like that.
"African American unemployment has reached its lowest rate ever recorded — ever!" Wow, he must really hate those people whose jobs he celebrates.
Should he atone by going out and looting and burning a black-owned business? That's what the racially sensitive people do these days.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When he said and did these things:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://www.theatlantic.com/ma... [theatlantic.com]
https://www.brookings.edu/blog... [brookings.edu]
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
https://gen.medium.com/trump-k... [medium.com]
Even Republicans agree that he is outwardly and overtly racist:
https://time.com/5638651/donal... [time.com]
Promoting racism = promoting racial violence
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trump says a million things, a few get taken out of context or exaggerated because he was going to be proclaimed racist no matter what. Because that's the only play in the playbook.
Playbook:
Step 1: Proclaim [anyone] racist.
Step 2: Get power because [whomever] is supposedly racist.
Step 3: Once in power, never do anything to help black folks get ahead. Make sure they don't prosper so you can exploit anger whenever you need power again.
Step 4: Go to Step 1. Repeat for 50 years.
Now you're running Biden who v
Re: (Score:3)
The down trend in black unemployment started a decade ago, Obama did all the front work on that and Trump just managed to not screw it up.
I do think Trump's criminal justice reforms were largely good.
I am not in one camp or the other, I just call it as I see it.
I'm not running Biden, he creeps me out, and I am Canadian, so I don't think I can run someone in your elections.
How does it keep resorting to the choice between two terrible options down there, is this the best 'merica has to offer? H Clinton vs Tr
Re:Trump promoted racial violence (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't how Obama beat McCain either, I don't recall anyone calling McCain racist.
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=john+mcc... [lmgtfy.com]
I don't recall Bill Clinton beating George H W Bush by calling GHWB racist.
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=george+b... [lmgtfy.com]
I am Canadian
People outside the US see media reports and make the mistake of thinking they have insight into US politics. They actually have a very surface level understanding. It's the perspective of people who hang out with reporters in New York or Washington. And only a part of that.
Every republican leader gets called racist, no matter what — except black republican leaders get called much worse things.
Re: (Score:2)
When I google 'john mccain racist' in my web browser I must see something different from you, most of the pages are about him fighting racism. There are some questioning some of his comments, like his use of the word "gook" decades ago, but the only place I see support for your idea is on far right websites accusing Democrats of calling him racist.
I can find a few very far left websites who claimed the Bushs or McCain is racist, but that is not what is happening here.
I had forgotten about the scandal around
Re: (Score:3)
Trump is not just being called racist by far lefties who will do anything to tarnish him.
Every single Republican gets called racist.
Here's a CBS news story [cbsnews.com] with Joe Biden telling a black audience that Mitt Romney (the most milquetoast Republican in the world) intended "to put you all back in chains".
When the Vice President of the United States will say Mitt Romney (!) is going to literally bring back slavery, that should be a hint. Mitt Romney is [anyone] and therefore he can and will be proclaimed a racist.
How many examples does it take to show that [anyone] means anyone?
Re: (Score:3)
The reason that we have to pick between to terrible options on a regular basis is that we have a "winner take all" political system. The candidate with the largest block of votes, wins. Second place gets 0. This leads to where if your party has no chance of taking 50.1% of the votes, you automatically lose and your vote is "wasted." This is a problem for parties such as the Greens, The Peace and Freedom Party, Libertarian Party, etc. Since they don't have enough voters to break into the top two, your v
Re: (Score:2)
Trump has a long history of being a racist. None of his comments are taken out of context, he said exactly what he meant to say. Crying over him getting caught doesn't make your side look good. Stop it.
Re: (Score:2)
He's 'proclaimed' to be racist because he has a 40-year long track record of doing and saying racist things.
What part of that was unclear?
Re: (Score:2)
He's 'proclaimed' to be racist because he has a 40-year long track record of doing and saying racist things.
Senator Tim Scott disagrees [thebl.com].
What part of that was unclear?
It's unclear how any republican could ever escape that proclamation, no matter what. Except black republicans get called worse things.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you so desperate to pretend he isn't?
I'd like things to get better instead of continuing to double down on decades of vain posturing and empty rhetoric.
Proclaim [anyone] racist never brought prosperity or happiness or satisfaction or peace or togetherness. Why is it the only thing you have to offer?
If everyone is racist, no one is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd like things to get better instead of continuing to double down on decades of vain posturing and empty rhetoric.
Your proposal to make things better is what, exactly?
Trump's plan: Lower unemployment by creating a labor shortage. Jobs help people. Labor shortage leads to higher wages, which helps people. (Some rich people who love cheap labor might not benefit. Too bad.)
Labor shortage comes from economic growth measures like tax cuts and regulatory reform coupled with border controls to keep foreign nationals from filling job openings ahead of unemployed Americans.
Also Trump's plan: keep us out of wars like the ones Biden voted for.
What's the alternative plan? Impor
Re: (Score:2)
The question was what should be done to address endemic racism in the country. I don't know what employment rates have to do anything.
I’d like things to get better for people. Sorry if that isn't shaded exactly toward the way you were thinking about it.
People who have jobs and are improving their lives are less victimized than long-term or chronically unemployed people. Less victimized by everything, racism included.
Rich people can absorb big setbacks and still do well. Middle-class people can absorb medium setbacks and still do fine. Chronically unemployed people can be devastated by comparatively small setbacks. When you have
Re: (Score:3)
Trump's tax cuts mostly helped the rich,
Everything always mostly helps the rich. That's why rich people always look so pleased.
... just look at unemployment numbers from the past few years (we'll ignore the past few months for obvious reasons). They were going down consistently from early in Obama's term and there wasn't a noticeable change in that trend under Trump. He was lucky to inherit an economy on the rise
Longest post-war expansion continued long past when it was predicted to end. Unemployment got down lower than most thought possible after the trade war was predicted to cause a recession, and then didn't. Three years in and he deserves zero credit? Ok. But that just means there are no rules and you would never give him credit regardless. It's all random or WTF-ever.
, it didn't improve because he let corporations poison us more.
Sooooo dramatic. Are you typing this from one of
Re: Trump promoted racial violence (Score:2)
After looking at that piece of shitty yellow journalism I skipped your other links.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like the MN Attorney General is setting the officers up to be acquitted [startribune.com] so he can exploit the rage for political gain when that happens.
Re: (Score:2)
"One should investigate how much looting is actually false-flag tactics" Ah, the old "false flag" excuse. Stop watching TV, bad for you.
Snapchat fails (Score:2)
The company said in a statement that it would not "amplify voices who incite racial violence." Snapchat's Discover section typically features content from news organizations, . . . "We will not amplify voices who incite racial violence and injustice by giving them free promotion on Discover. Racial violence and injustice have no place in our society and we stand together with all who seek peace, love, equality, and justice in America."
Considering that it is the "news organizations" that are promoting racial violence and injustice, I'd say that Snapchat is failing at whatever they're trying to accomplish. I mean, you have the NYT promoting the idea that the entire point of the Constitution was to promote slavery or even that the US was somehow unique in the world respecting slavery. Pushing the idea that the "white demon" kept you in chains, and therefore that they now owe everything to you IS PROMOTING RACIAL VIOLENCE.
A step in the right direction... (Score:2, Insightful)
I think a larger point is overlooking ... (Score:3)
... what we're actually discussing here: Social media.
The problem with it is that anyone takes it seriously.
That's when the wheels fell off. Sometimes I wish that every goddam member of every goddam platform would publish shit that's over the top.
The unwashed should be able to pollute on the same level as Trump.
Not gonna happen for a simple reason: Trump's a cash cow.
Ha Ha (Score:2)
<Nelson>HA HA!</Nelson>
Re: (Score:2)
Well in this case it would be Snap Inc, the owners of Snapchat
Re: (Score:2)
Be our guest.
Re: (Score:2)
They've always got Stormfront.
Re:Big tech censoring conservatives continues (Score:5, Insightful)
Except this is not censorship. It is literally snapchat's own free speech rights in action. No one is removing anything, they are just not promoting Trump's content.
Of course authoritarians always believe "Rules are for the other guy, I do what I want!" Conservatism consists of exactly one guiding principle: there must be an in group that the law protects, but does not bind, and an out-group, that the law binds, but does not protect.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny I was about to say the same thing for Liberalism...
How about a better point of view: Everyone is different, and has their point of view. If you don't believe it, do trash it or call people stupid, etc. Just know that is not yours and others have their own. Isn't this what diversity of thought is about? If we all think alike, what a boring world this would be.
Do you have friends from the "other side of the aisle?" It's honestly not hard, but it's what is needed now. No more divisiveness.
Re: Big tech censoring conservatives continues (Score:4, Informative)
Jesus Christ, you couldn't be more deluded if you tried. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"In a 7–2 decision, the Court ruled on narrow grounds that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips' rights to free exercise, and reversed the Commission's decision."
So that case was settled by the Supreme Court, who decided that the bakery in question was free to refuse service.
Say, good buddy, what sound does a hoop make when your ass just got dunked on? BOOM SHAKALAKALAKA!
Re: (Score:2)
But I thought that resisting tyranny was what conservatives were all about? Isn't that why they're so keen to have a well-armed populace? Well, here it is. Except, of course, they're not shooting anyone at the moment, but the NRA and Co. must be hoping that these crowds will exercise their constitutional rights at some point, right? Otherwise, what's the point?
Re: (Score:2)
How about Nintendo?
Re: (Score:2)
4chan, I suppose. Most of the rightwingnut sites like Free Republic have dwindled to irrelevancy.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
In this case, the fix is quite easy:
1. Rotate your monitor 180 degrees.
2. Invert colours.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So may times in so many ways, but how about just the last few days when he used clearly racist tropes and racist dog whistles like "vicious dogs" and "when the looting starts the shooting starts", calling on failed solutions from the darkest times of the past to attack peaceful protesters along with rioters.
But you have probably rationalized these away, along with all his other clearly racist actions and tweets, as your Great Orange God can do no wrong.
Clearly the rioting has to stop, but your Orange God is
Re:Everything's RAAAAAAACIIIIIIIST! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, I'll bite. I can't stand Trump, but the 'racism' card is being overplayed tremendously. The most alarming part of it all is that racism is now fully subjective - if there is a racist way to interpret something, then it's now ok to interpret it that way. We are fully in the age of "you said X but we all just know you meant Y, therefore you're guilty of racism". It may serve your present purposes well, but man it would suck to be on the other side of that - there's no defense because the mob has somehow looked into your brain and heart and knows your intent.
Let's see:
So may times in so many ways
Please share - were they actual cases of racist remarks, or things taken out of context and/or taken in the worst possible way just cuz we already know he's racist, therefore it's ok to interpret everything he says as racist?
clearly racist tropes and racist dog whistles
Yikes, that sounds pretty damning, I can't wait to see what example you give...
(FWIW, I love the irony of the "dog whistle" metaphor - who is supposed to be able to hear it? Who howls the loudest when the whistle is supposedly sounded? Interesting!)
Anyway, now we're to the big reveal of his racist comment:
like "vicious dogs"
Oh.
For context, here's what Google says was his comment: "nobody came close to breaching the [White House] fence. If they had they would have been greeted with the most vicious dogs".
Look, Trump is train wreck, crass in every way, and bumbles constantly when he speaks. To me he's a hateful man. But do you honestly see racism in that statement? I mean, it's almost certainly a statement of fact, and he clearly wasn't talking about sending the dogs against the protesters generally (which makes the claim about a historical reference even more dubious). So which is more likely: that if you scale the fence, you'll get attacked by guard dogs trained to be, well, vicious, or that Trump (didn't he once claim to have written more books than he's read??) is enough of a student of history to know little code words to slip in there just to rile people up or something?
"when the looting starts the shooting starts"
Again, not inherently racist, and also a statement of fact. I think it was a stupid thing of him to say. Again though, what's more plausible: he's using the most public medium and a phrase from a half century ago to speak in "code talk" to somehow signal something to somebody... or that he heard it and thought it was catchy? Seriously, which is more likely? So: dumb thing to say? Yes. Racist? Hardly.
calling on failed solutions from the darkest times of the past to attack peaceful protesters along with rioters.
And that is racist how exactly?
But you have probably rationalized these away, along with all his other clearly racist actions and tweets
I think you're confusing stuff you don't like with racism.
The problem now is that his racism is defined recursively - every comment he makes is interpreted as racist because his previous comments were racist, and so the latest comment gets added to the big bag of racist comments and used as proof that his next comment is also racist.
I personally can't wait for him to be out of office, but I do worry that when that day comes, the charge of 'racism' will have become so diluted as to have lost all meaning and potency, such that real acts of racism end up getting brushed over and ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump's been racist for years. Stop papering it over.
Re:Everything's RAAAAAAACIIIIIIIST! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, it takes an awful lot of explaining to explain away all of the seemingly racist things he says.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ [wikipedia.org]... [wikipedia.org]
https://www.theatlantic.com/ma [theatlantic.com]... [theatlantic.com]
https://www.brookings.edu/blog [brookings.edu]... [brookings.edu]
https://www.usatoday.com/story [usatoday.com]... [usatoday.com]
https://gen.medium.com/trump-k [medium.com]... [medium.com]
Even Republicans agree that he is outwardly and overtly racist:
https://time.com/5638651/donal [time.com]... [time.com]
I agree some maybe taken out of context, but I recall
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be using a very strange meaning of "some" when you said "some may be taken out of context".
Re: (Score:2)
my first 5 links didn't copy correctly, sorry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://www.theatlantic.com/ma... [theatlantic.com]
https://www.brookings.edu/blog... [brookings.edu]
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
https://gen.medium.com/trump-k... [medium.com]
Re: (Score:2)
4 of the 6 links you posted were error / 404 links. The other two had Trump saying "mean stuff" and/or people saying that what he was saying was racist.
Like I said before, I really can't stand the guy, but so far all of the examples of racist statements are Trump saying mean stuff to people of color. If he's anything, he's an equal opportunity offender, but he treats just about everyone as garbage. For something to be racism, it needs to fit the definition:
"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed
Re: (Score:2)
I think a lot of the racist things Trump says are just him repeating things he heard other people say and liked the sound of. But he has shown himself to actually believe racist things in the past.
Remember when he called for those innocent black kids to be killed? The ones framed by the police. If you read the ads he took out now... They speak for themselves.
Or how he tried to exclude black people from some of his properties. Lost a lawsuit over that one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the exclusion of black people from his properties is probably the best example I've seen so far.
With the Central Park 5, what exactly did he say that was racist? He was definitely on the wrong side of things, and his vitriol didn't help, but what about his comments were racist? (the ads mentioned people of all races being threatened by the alleged wrongdoers, and remember that many people at the time were convinced of their guilt - the newpapers called them the "wolf pack" and such).
Re: (Score:2)
Who killed
Patrick Underwood.
David Dorn.
Peaceful Protest is a dog whistle for murder, riot and mayhem.
Re: (Score:2)
should we ban all peaceful protests then?
or only ones related to race?
Perhaps all peaceful protesters, whether they are in the way for a photo op or not, should be tear gassed and flash banged?
Re: (Score:2)
How have we NOT had a discussion about race for the entire time I've been alive? It is literally a Democrat talking point in every Presidential election I can remember.
How about we have a conversation about what the points to be discussed are, set criteria for what a resolution to any problems identified will look like, and how then determine how the problem will be resolved? If I worked for a company and constantly wanted to have a conversation about how the storage grid would get implemented, I'd be fir
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the
public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs -- partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.
Virtual beer for the first one who correct
Re: (Score:2)
Booker T.
Washington, not the wrestler.
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: You usually don't have to post bail for peaceful protests...
Never been involved in peaceful protests, have you? Or for that matter ever looked at a photo of police reaction to a sit-in, broken bones are not uncommon.
Re: (Score:2)
"When the looting starts, the shooting starts" -- Walter Headley and DJ Trump
Walter Headley - Democrat. President Trump - Republican. Seems both sides agree!
Re: (Score:2)
Walter Headley - Democrat in the old racist southern branch of the Democrat Party that no longer exists. President Trump - Republican in the new racist branch of the Republican Party working overtime to pick up the old racists from the old Democrat Party. There, now we're being honest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trump has proven himself to be corrupt, a liar, a fraud, hates the US Constitution, and one cynical bastard that uses the Evangelical Christian community and their twisted views.
Not only does he hate the Constitution, he actively violates it, almost every day.
And yet, whenever it serves his own purposes or it's convenient, goes running to it at any perceived slight.
Re: Good. (Score:2, Informative)
You must be a single guy with no female family or friends.
A lot of European girls would disagree with her on a few of her key policy initiatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
what the heck are you talking about?
Rape in Germany is about 1/50th as common as in the US and is not increasing. Maybe you should check your facts smart guy
Incidence of rape in Germany has remained relatively stable, rising from 7.57 in 1995, to 9 per 100,000 people in 2009. Most victims are female and between the ages of 21 and 40. Nearly all perpetrators are male, and about half are current or former partners.
as compared to the US:
According to a March 2013 report from the U.S. Department of Justice's Bur
Trumps balls wont polish themselves (Score:5, Funny)
that's why he hires the best people like you.
Re: (Score:2)
No one said that everything Trump says is racist. Just some things are.
Saying some racist things makes you racist.
Re: (Score:2)
You are off topic but I will humour you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]