6 ms·

> To require defining how racist is racist enough? That word just never ceases to be a source of power and comfort to you, doesn't it? Liberals have used that

by pdx 10y ago

> To require defining how racist is racist enough? That word just never ceases to be a source of power and comfort to you, doesn't it? Liberals have used that word too often to shut down debate and dehumanize their opponent or victim. We're done giving you that super power anymore. Now you'll have to make real arguments. It's not racist to wish to enforce current immigration law. It's not racist to wish to protect the jobs and lives of American citizens. Hey, why didn't you talk about what a homophobe he is? Well, I'm sure you'll use it next time, when Thiel is not the subject of your outrage.

jimbokun 10y ago
sigh Just a coincidence Trump continues to accuse the Central Park teenagers of a murder for which they were acquited long ago. Just a coincidence Trump supports "stop and frisk", even though it has been shown to be applied disproportionately to African Americans. Just a coincidence Trump said a Mexican judge could not fairly adjudicate his case because he was Mexican. I could go on and on and on until my fingers got tired typing. Racist objectively applies to Donald Trump, its just what the word means.
- pdx 10y ago
  I'm sorry, but I must ask your fingers to become more tired, as your three cases are not the smoking gun of the dreaded racism that you seem to believe they are. The Central Park Five have a lot more people than Donald Trump believing they were falsely acquitted. There were multiple confessions. "I didn't rape her, all I did was feel her tits, but I know who did". Kind of shit, before the body was even discovered. That's not racist, that's just disagreement with a verdict. The "Mexican Judge", as you call it, has a name. His name is Gonzalo Curiel, and he is a prominent member of La Raza Lawyers. La Raza, meaning "The Race", is a pro mexican organization that would be understandably adversarial to Trump's position of enforcing existing immigration laws and building a wall with Mexico. That Trump would feel that such a judge is not impartial, given his stange rulings in the case that far, is not racist, it's deductive logic. "Stop and Frisk" is problematic. Stop and Frisk can be said to be a tread on your 4th Amendment "search and seizure" protection. We can both agree that this freedom is rapidly being violated in a number of ways today already. I am torn between the need to do something different to keep Chicago black youth from killing each other in such large numbers and the desire to not add yet another stain on the fourth amendment. The contention that "stop and frisk" is bad because of profiling, misses several points. It is quite possible that a version of "stop and frisk" that would satisfy the profiling objection that you have, could satisfy method of reducing Chicago black homicides. Somebody talking about "Stop and Frisk" as a possible way to save lives, is not racist, they are looking for answers.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    The line you're repeating about the Central Park Five is a pernicious lie, and you should stop using it. The actual assailants involved --- not the five juveniles convicted --- both confessed and were tied to the crime through DNA evidence.
- nugget 10y ago
  I don't think it's fair to paint supporters of 'stop and frisk' as racists. A friend of mine is a cop in Chicago and told me recently, to my surprise, that the biggest supporters of these policies are actually the ordinary families living in bad neighborhoods who have a "do whatever it takes" attitude towards reducing the violent crime on their doorsteps. Personally I would support pushing decisions like this down to the most local level possible. If the residents of Fuller Park or Englewood or other neighborhoods in Chicago want stop and frisk, then let them vote for it in the affirmitive, and let it be enforced only in those areas, as an act of self-governance, implemented in a transparent and accountable way that will satisfy critics as to its constitutionality.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    I live near the corner of Austin and Madison in Chicago (you seem familiar with the geography and that you'd know what that implies) and I do not believe it is the case that residents of that neighborhood have a general attitude of "let the police do whatever they need to to reduce crime". I can be more specific if we need to be. More importantly, we have a Constitution precisely so that the residents of crime-stricken neighborhoods cannot simply vote to repeal protections they've stopped liking. By the way? If neighborhoods had that ability, I'm fairly certain Kenilworth would make a lot more use of it than Englewood.
    - nugget 10y ago
      Q: Was the police technique of “stop-and-frisk” found unconstitutional? A: The practice is not unconstitutional, but a judge ruled in 2013 that New York City’s stop-and-frisk program was carried out in a manner that violated the U.S. Constitution. http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/is-stop-and-frisk-unconstitutional/ http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/is-stop-and-frisk-unconstit...
      - tptacek 10y ago
        You are not responding to my comment.
lobf 10y ago
What is the standard for being racist then? When Trump says that a judge isn't fit to do his job because his parents were Mexican, what do we call that? His continued persecution of the Central Park 5?

by pdx 10y ago

jimbokun 10y ago

sigh Just a coincidence Trump continues to accuse the Central Park teenagers of a murder for which they were acquited long ago. Just a coincidence Trump supports "stop and frisk", even though it has been shown to be applied disproportionately to African Americans. Just a coincidence Trump said a Mexican judge could not fairly adjudicate his case because he was Mexican. I could go on and on and on until my fingers got tired typing. Racist objectively applies to Donald Trump, its just what the word means.

pdx 10y ago
I'm sorry, but I must ask your fingers to become more tired, as your three cases are not the smoking gun of the dreaded racism that you seem to believe they are. The Central Park Five have a lot more people than Donald Trump believing they were falsely acquitted. There were multiple confessions. "I didn't rape her, all I did was feel her tits, but I know who did". Kind of shit, before the body was even discovered. That's not racist, that's just disagreement with a verdict. The "Mexican Judge", as you call it, has a name. His name is Gonzalo Curiel, and he is a prominent member of La Raza Lawyers. La Raza, meaning "The Race", is a pro mexican organization that would be understandably adversarial to Trump's position of enforcing existing immigration laws and building a wall with Mexico. That Trump would feel that such a judge is not impartial, given his stange rulings in the case that far, is not racist, it's deductive logic. "Stop and Frisk" is problematic. Stop and Frisk can be said to be a tread on your 4th Amendment "search and seizure" protection. We can both agree that this freedom is rapidly being violated in a number of ways today already. I am torn between the need to do something different to keep Chicago black youth from killing each other in such large numbers and the desire to not add yet another stain on the fourth amendment. The contention that "stop and frisk" is bad because of profiling, misses several points. It is quite possible that a version of "stop and frisk" that would satisfy the profiling objection that you have, could satisfy method of reducing Chicago black homicides. Somebody talking about "Stop and Frisk" as a possible way to save lives, is not racist, they are looking for answers.
- tptacek 10y ago
  The line you're repeating about the Central Park Five is a pernicious lie, and you should stop using it. The actual assailants involved --- not the five juveniles convicted --- both confessed and were tied to the crime through DNA evidence.
nugget 10y ago
I don't think it's fair to paint supporters of 'stop and frisk' as racists. A friend of mine is a cop in Chicago and told me recently, to my surprise, that the biggest supporters of these policies are actually the ordinary families living in bad neighborhoods who have a "do whatever it takes" attitude towards reducing the violent crime on their doorsteps. Personally I would support pushing decisions like this down to the most local level possible. If the residents of Fuller Park or Englewood or other neighborhoods in Chicago want stop and frisk, then let them vote for it in the affirmitive, and let it be enforced only in those areas, as an act of self-governance, implemented in a transparent and accountable way that will satisfy critics as to its constitutionality.
- tptacek 10y ago
  I live near the corner of Austin and Madison in Chicago (you seem familiar with the geography and that you'd know what that implies) and I do not believe it is the case that residents of that neighborhood have a general attitude of "let the police do whatever they need to to reduce crime". I can be more specific if we need to be. More importantly, we have a Constitution precisely so that the residents of crime-stricken neighborhoods cannot simply vote to repeal protections they've stopped liking. By the way? If neighborhoods had that ability, I'm fairly certain Kenilworth would make a lot more use of it than Englewood.
  - nugget 10y ago
    Q: Was the police technique of “stop-and-frisk” found unconstitutional? A: The practice is not unconstitutional, but a judge ruled in 2013 that New York City’s stop-and-frisk program was carried out in a manner that violated the U.S. Constitution. http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/is-stop-and-frisk-unconstitutional/ http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/is-stop-and-frisk-unconstit...
    - tptacek 10y ago
      You are not responding to my comment.

lobf 10y ago

What is the standard for being racist then? When Trump says that a judge isn't fit to do his job because his parents were Mexican, what do we call that? His continued persecution of the Central Park 5?