6 ms·

> Trump's casual racism, misogyny, and conspiracy theories are without precedent among major presidential nominees. He has said that a judge of Mexican descent

> Trump's casual racism, misogyny, and conspiracy theories are without precedent among major presidential nominees. He has said that a judge of Mexican descent couldn’t treat him fairly because of his heritage Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the judge presiding over the Trump university case, is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association. La Raza is a group that advocates for a path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants. > we should ban Muslims from entering the country. Trump wants to ban Muslims from majority Muslim countries that are currently involved in prolonged wars which makes a comprehensive background investigation impossible to do. > When his supporters beat up a homeless Hispanic man and cited Trump, he called them “very passionate”. You forgot to mention all of the Trump supporters that get chased and beat up by Mexican flag waving protesters. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/06/03/ugly-bloody-scenes-in-san-jose-as-protesters-attack-trump-supporters-outside-rally/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/06/0... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2016/06/02/trump-san-jose-rally-protesters/32639803/?AID=10709313&PID=6164151&SID=ipog6mhenz015ndv00dth http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2... This by no means justifies violence on the Trump supporters side, but please do some research to find out the majority of the violence is perpetrated by the protesters that show up to Trump rallies and not the other way around. I can go on and dismantle every other premise in this article using data and logic, but I will stop here.

kbenson 10y ago
> > He has said that a judge of Mexican descent couldn’t treat him fairly because of his heritage > La Raza is a group that advocates for a path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants. What does that have to do with his heritage. There are people that believe that without Mexican descent. I believe it, and I'm not Mexican, and am not an immigrant, and neither are my parents. There are people of Mexican descent that don't believe in a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants (I know one). Reducing people's behavior to something fueled by ethnicity is racism. It is not appropriate to, even with the link pointed out, to assume that Curiel's view regarding immigration does not have basis in beliefs that are distinct from his heritage. It is not appropriate to then further use this as evidence for why he's ruling some way in his job without much more than a single case (and this assertion has nothing to do with racism or heritage). > Trump wants to ban Muslims from majority Muslim countries that are currently involved in prolonged wars which makes a comprehensive background investigation impossible to do. Freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right. I don't see how this right can be protected if you filter possible future citizens based on religion.
- tomp 10y ago
  > Reducing people's behavior to something fueled by ethnicity is racism. So when people say "white people are often racist", that's racism? (I actually agree, minorities are often very racist like that!) > Freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right. Most rights are suspended at the border anyways.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > So when people say "white people are often racist", that's racism? Depending on how you interpret "often", it can be. It's functionally no different than "X people are often lazy" in how it paints a population based on some demographic which actually has nothing to do with that attribute. If you treat "often" in it's literal sense, as in "this happens a lot", then as long as it's happened at least a few times, it's subjectively true, since often is relative to what you think a good baseline is. If you think one time is more than should be seen, then experiencing it five times could be called "often" (technically. It quickly breaks down when applied to colloquial use in this situation). The real problem here is assuming a set of personal experiences, whether they number 10 or 1000, necessarily indicate a trait that scales across the entire population of those people. Even leaving out things like confirmation bias, where your original data may be woefully inaccurate, there is little to no evidence that any trend you think you are seeing applies to that ethnicity equally in other locations and situations. You can look at the sentiments of other people and stories in the media for corroboration, but since those aren't accurate representations either, it's still left open to rampant confirmation bias. This aspect of human psychology was less problematic when we all lived in somewhat small groups. In those cases, the other was the other tribe. Even though they probably looked like you, they were the outsiders, and some distrust and stereotyping of them served the dual purposes of security and social cohesion. The same psychological aspects are at play, and they still cause us to group together, but unfortunately now it promotes the opposite of social cohesion. (and now you have my pop psy take on it). > (I actually agree, minorities are often very racist like that!) I see what you did there. :)
- graycat 10y ago
  > He has said that a judge of Mexican descent couldn’t treat him fairly because of his heritage No, that is what much of the media wants to claim, say, for clicks. Instead, there are two points where can use because. The first point is, Trump asserts that the judge is unfair, and Trump asserts this because of the judge's rulings. The assertion of unfairness is from the rulings with nothing to do with Mexico. Second, as in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKmpB7SeNE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKmpB7SeNE with > All I'm trying to do is figure out why I'm being treated so unfairly by a judge. And a lot of people agree with it. All I want to do, all I want to do is find out why I'm being treated so unfairly by a judge. Trump was looking for the MOTIVATION of the judge to be unfair. Then it was easy enough to notice that the judge has a Mexican background and is active in some pro-Mexican political causes that conflict with some of Trump's campaign positions on Mexico. So, Trump concluded that the judge's MOTIVATION to be unfair was because of the Mexican stuff. Trump asserted unfairness because of the RULINGS with nothing about Mexico. Then, as a second step, Trump asserted that the judge was MOTIVATED to be unfair because of the Mexico stuff. So, we have two points and two uses of because. But much of the media, in their search for clicks, conflated those two to assert that Trump said that the judge was unfair because of the Mexican stuff. Nope: That would be poor evidence that the judge had been unfair. Instead, the claim that the judge was unfair was because of the judge's RULINGS. Then, the MOTIVATION for that unfairness was because of the Mexican stuff. In no way did Trump assert that all judges with Mexican backgrounds would be unfair, but much of the media wanted to play with words to conclude that. The US has, IMHO rightly, decided that racism is a bad thing. Sure, long in the US, people of Western European descent were racist against Native Americans, Africans, Irish, Italians, Asians, Jews, and Mexicans. Well, the US has gone a long way to stopping that. But neither do we want Native Americans, ..., etc. to be racist against others, e.g., persons of Western European descent. We want no racism, from anywhere. > Freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right. I don't see how this right can be protected if you filter possible future citizens based on religion. There are at least three really big problems with your statement here: First, the US gets to decide who can enter the country and for that decision can use any reasons or no reasons. Non US citizens outside the US have no "rights" in the US at all. The US gets to run its immigration system in any way it wants. Second, Islam is a long way from being just a religion. In addition to religion, Islam runs marriages, dress codes, lots of social norms, diets, education, architecture, media, the legal system, foreign policy, government, and, yes, also religion. Each part of Islam regards everyone else as an infidel to be either converted to killed. In this way, the Sunni and Shiite parts of Islam have been at war for 1000+ years, and recent examples include the Iran-Iraq war, the Baghdad-ISIS war, the Syrian civil war, and the high tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran, e.g., in Yemen. Islamic religious leaders issue Fatwahs, commands, calling for Jihad, holy war. ISIS has declared war on Europe and the US. Iran says "Death to America", and that cry is also common in parts of Pakistan. Net, when considering immigrants to the US, Islam must be regarded as not nearly just a religion. Third, the Islamic immigration under most consideration now is heavily from areas of the Mideast awash in Islamic wars and violent Medieval Islamic culture, indeed, from areas that have declared war on the US. And that immigration is not via the usual legal channels but for "refugees". From the list of violent attacks from radical Islamic terrorists in the US, Europe, etc., the "refugees" are an obvious threat to the US. So, no way should the US admit such people. And, even if the wars end, it is in the strong interests of the US to reject people who likely will not assimilate. E.g., the US does not want whole communities that reject much of US culture and, instead, are devoted politically to religious leaders and follow Sharia law -- not in the interests of the US. But, a Muslim US citizen has full US citizenship rights as you suggest.
tzs 10y ago
> Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the judge presiding over the Trump university case, is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association. La Raza is a group that advocates for a path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants. This is completely irrelevant, because most the judge's rulings that Trump is upset about occurred before Trump flip flopped on immigration from his former support for a path to citizenship to his current opposition.
- unprepare 10y ago
  also because the issue is that trump himself said the judge is unfit due to his ethnicity. thirdly, > La Raza is a group that advocates for a path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants. this quote implies that the judge is incapable of being an impartial public official, incapable of performing his job.
giaour 10y ago
You seem to be confusing two organizations that both have "La Raza" in their names. My understanding is that the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association is a pretty standard professional affinity group (like ACM-W: https://women.acm.org https://women.acm.org). Do you have a link to an article or policy document from the La Raza Lawyers Association that supports your claim?
- tatrajim 10y ago
  Concerning the California La Raza Lawyer's Association (Judge Curiel belongs to the San Diego branch) and inflammatory comments by its founder: http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/06/09/whites-go-back-europe-california-hispanic-state-said-founder-judge-curiels-group/ http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/06/09/whites-go-back-eur... Concerning the 2014 San Diego La Raza Scholarship Fund and Judge Curiel's participation on the selection committee that awarded a scholarship to Ricardo Elorza, self-described as "a boy from Oaxaca, who did not know English and is undocumented" http://sdlrla.com/scholarship/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/La-Raza-Dinnner-Program-2014-FINAL http://sdlrla.com/scholarship/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/La-...
unprepare 10y ago
>I can go on and dismantle every other premise in this article using data and logic, but I will stop here. is this r/cringeanarchy?
ScottBurson 10y ago
> the majority of the violence is perpetrated by the protesters that show up to Trump rallies and not the other way around So what? The point is not the protester's behavior -- it's the fact that Trump encourages them.

kbenson 10y ago

> > He has said that a judge of Mexican descent couldn’t treat him fairly because of his heritage > La Raza is a group that advocates for a path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants. What does that have to do with his heritage. There are people that believe that without Mexican descent. I believe it, and I'm not Mexican, and am not an immigrant, and neither are my parents. There are people of Mexican descent that don't believe in a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants (I know one). Reducing people's behavior to something fueled by ethnicity is racism. It is not appropriate to, even with the link pointed out, to assume that Curiel's view regarding immigration does not have basis in beliefs that are distinct from his heritage. It is not appropriate to then further use this as evidence for why he's ruling some way in his job without much more than a single case (and this assertion has nothing to do with racism or heritage). > Trump wants to ban Muslims from majority Muslim countries that are currently involved in prolonged wars which makes a comprehensive background investigation impossible to do. Freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right. I don't see how this right can be protected if you filter possible future citizens based on religion.

tomp 10y ago
> Reducing people's behavior to something fueled by ethnicity is racism. So when people say "white people are often racist", that's racism? (I actually agree, minorities are often very racist like that!) > Freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right. Most rights are suspended at the border anyways.
- kbenson 10y ago
  > So when people say "white people are often racist", that's racism? Depending on how you interpret "often", it can be. It's functionally no different than "X people are often lazy" in how it paints a population based on some demographic which actually has nothing to do with that attribute. If you treat "often" in it's literal sense, as in "this happens a lot", then as long as it's happened at least a few times, it's subjectively true, since often is relative to what you think a good baseline is. If you think one time is more than should be seen, then experiencing it five times could be called "often" (technically. It quickly breaks down when applied to colloquial use in this situation). The real problem here is assuming a set of personal experiences, whether they number 10 or 1000, necessarily indicate a trait that scales across the entire population of those people. Even leaving out things like confirmation bias, where your original data may be woefully inaccurate, there is little to no evidence that any trend you think you are seeing applies to that ethnicity equally in other locations and situations. You can look at the sentiments of other people and stories in the media for corroboration, but since those aren't accurate representations either, it's still left open to rampant confirmation bias. This aspect of human psychology was less problematic when we all lived in somewhat small groups. In those cases, the other was the other tribe. Even though they probably looked like you, they were the outsiders, and some distrust and stereotyping of them served the dual purposes of security and social cohesion. The same psychological aspects are at play, and they still cause us to group together, but unfortunately now it promotes the opposite of social cohesion. (and now you have my pop psy take on it). > (I actually agree, minorities are often very racist like that!) I see what you did there. :)
graycat 10y ago
> He has said that a judge of Mexican descent couldn’t treat him fairly because of his heritage No, that is what much of the media wants to claim, say, for clicks. Instead, there are two points where can use because. The first point is, Trump asserts that the judge is unfair, and Trump asserts this because of the judge's rulings. The assertion of unfairness is from the rulings with nothing to do with Mexico. Second, as in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKmpB7SeNE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKmpB7SeNE with > All I'm trying to do is figure out why I'm being treated so unfairly by a judge. And a lot of people agree with it. All I want to do, all I want to do is find out why I'm being treated so unfairly by a judge. Trump was looking for the MOTIVATION of the judge to be unfair. Then it was easy enough to notice that the judge has a Mexican background and is active in some pro-Mexican political causes that conflict with some of Trump's campaign positions on Mexico. So, Trump concluded that the judge's MOTIVATION to be unfair was because of the Mexican stuff. Trump asserted unfairness because of the RULINGS with nothing about Mexico. Then, as a second step, Trump asserted that the judge was MOTIVATED to be unfair because of the Mexico stuff. So, we have two points and two uses of because. But much of the media, in their search for clicks, conflated those two to assert that Trump said that the judge was unfair because of the Mexican stuff. Nope: That would be poor evidence that the judge had been unfair. Instead, the claim that the judge was unfair was because of the judge's RULINGS. Then, the MOTIVATION for that unfairness was because of the Mexican stuff. In no way did Trump assert that all judges with Mexican backgrounds would be unfair, but much of the media wanted to play with words to conclude that. The US has, IMHO rightly, decided that racism is a bad thing. Sure, long in the US, people of Western European descent were racist against Native Americans, Africans, Irish, Italians, Asians, Jews, and Mexicans. Well, the US has gone a long way to stopping that. But neither do we want Native Americans, ..., etc. to be racist against others, e.g., persons of Western European descent. We want no racism, from anywhere. > Freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right. I don't see how this right can be protected if you filter possible future citizens based on religion. There are at least three really big problems with your statement here: First, the US gets to decide who can enter the country and for that decision can use any reasons or no reasons. Non US citizens outside the US have no "rights" in the US at all. The US gets to run its immigration system in any way it wants. Second, Islam is a long way from being just a religion. In addition to religion, Islam runs marriages, dress codes, lots of social norms, diets, education, architecture, media, the legal system, foreign policy, government, and, yes, also religion. Each part of Islam regards everyone else as an infidel to be either converted to killed. In this way, the Sunni and Shiite parts of Islam have been at war for 1000+ years, and recent examples include the Iran-Iraq war, the Baghdad-ISIS war, the Syrian civil war, and the high tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran, e.g., in Yemen. Islamic religious leaders issue Fatwahs, commands, calling for Jihad, holy war. ISIS has declared war on Europe and the US. Iran says "Death to America", and that cry is also common in parts of Pakistan. Net, when considering immigrants to the US, Islam must be regarded as not nearly just a religion. Third, the Islamic immigration under most consideration now is heavily from areas of the Mideast awash in Islamic wars and violent Medieval Islamic culture, indeed, from areas that have declared war on the US. And that immigration is not via the usual legal channels but for "refugees". From the list of violent attacks from radical Islamic terrorists in the US, Europe, etc., the "refugees" are an obvious threat to the US. So, no way should the US admit such people. And, even if the wars end, it is in the strong interests of the US to reject people who likely will not assimilate. E.g., the US does not want whole communities that reject much of US culture and, instead, are devoted politically to religious leaders and follow Sharia law -- not in the interests of the US. But, a Muslim US citizen has full US citizenship rights as you suggest.

tzs 10y ago

> Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the judge presiding over the Trump university case, is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association. La Raza is a group that advocates for a path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants. This is completely irrelevant, because most the judge's rulings that Trump is upset about occurred before Trump flip flopped on immigration from his former support for a path to citizenship to his current opposition.

unprepare 10y ago
also because the issue is that trump himself said the judge is unfit due to his ethnicity. thirdly, > La Raza is a group that advocates for a path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants. this quote implies that the judge is incapable of being an impartial public official, incapable of performing his job.

giaour 10y ago

You seem to be confusing two organizations that both have "La Raza" in their names. My understanding is that the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association is a pretty standard professional affinity group (like ACM-W: https://women.acm.org https://women.acm.org). Do you have a link to an article or policy document from the La Raza Lawyers Association that supports your claim?

tatrajim 10y ago
Concerning the California La Raza Lawyer's Association (Judge Curiel belongs to the San Diego branch) and inflammatory comments by its founder: http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/06/09/whites-go-back-europe-california-hispanic-state-said-founder-judge-curiels-group/ http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/06/09/whites-go-back-eur... Concerning the 2014 San Diego La Raza Scholarship Fund and Judge Curiel's participation on the selection committee that awarded a scholarship to Ricardo Elorza, self-described as "a boy from Oaxaca, who did not know English and is undocumented" http://sdlrla.com/scholarship/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/La-Raza-Dinnner-Program-2014-FINAL http://sdlrla.com/scholarship/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/La-...

unprepare 10y ago

>I can go on and dismantle every other premise in this article using data and logic, but I will stop here. is this r/cringeanarchy?

ScottBurson 10y ago

> the majority of the violence is perpetrated by the protesters that show up to Trump rallies and not the other way around So what? The point is not the protester's behavior -- it's the fact that Trump encourages them.