5 ms·

I also disagree with that section but why do you feel it affects the article as a whole? For that matter, I disagree that the article is about "trumpist racism"

I also disagree with that section but why do you feel it affects the article as a whole? For that matter, I disagree that the article is about "trumpist racism"; that's just a symptom of what it talks about.

tptacek 10y ago
The whole article is like this. It's just a sequence of showily contrarian takes that fall apart when you read them closely. The author is counting on you not doing that, just like Steve Bannon is counting on Americans to just take his word for it when he says he has nothing to do with the "alt-right".
- NhanH 10y ago
  You're just nit picking on his writing at this point (the part about "best people"). Instead, if you think it doesn't hold, can you explain how Trump's quote would be categorically different than the 2 other quotes he has in that section?
  - tptacek 10y ago
    "Picking on his writing"? Look at the article we're talking about. It's the rhetorical equivalent of a game of Operation.
- scrollaway 10y ago
  That seems like a super weird comparison? There's some odd local conclusions being drawn/methodology being used but it doesn't seem to me to be the point of the article. Mostly what it gives is a run down of how else you can perceive these things about Trump. What the author seems to be concerned with is: How does a guy that is blatantly evil in many ways in the eyes of so many people actually get a large percent of the vote? How did we get there? It's making a pretty solid case that there is a lot of either baseless or unnecessary attacks against Trump's character which dilute the actual issues. Or maybe I'm extrapolating from what I believe is already the case, but it does give some other perspectives. It doesn't matter that these perspectives "fall apart", the author isn't actually defending Trump. When you talk about perspective, it could be written by a bowl of soup and still be valid.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    It's a super weird comparison if you grant the author's premise and don't read critically. But the author has selected a tendentious premise; there is no setting on the "charitable" knob that allows Alexander to downplay or ignore instances of overt racialist rhetoric from Trump, since the whole point of his piece is to immunize Trump from charges that he's a racialist candidate. I mean, for fuck's sake, he tries to claim that Trump is less racist than Mitt Romney. There nobody in the world who believes that, except for Alexander's readership, who want badly to believe it.
    - scrollaway 10y ago
      I don't know the author but I'm sensing you do and that's causing some bias. My read of it was that the "racist" label is being applied too quickly, too liberally and too often. The question of whether Trump is racist matters less than the issues that arise when a label like that becomes a weapon.

tptacek 10y ago

The whole article is like this. It's just a sequence of showily contrarian takes that fall apart when you read them closely. The author is counting on you not doing that, just like Steve Bannon is counting on Americans to just take his word for it when he says he has nothing to do with the "alt-right".

NhanH 10y ago
You're just nit picking on his writing at this point (the part about "best people"). Instead, if you think it doesn't hold, can you explain how Trump's quote would be categorically different than the 2 other quotes he has in that section?
- tptacek 10y ago
  "Picking on his writing"? Look at the article we're talking about. It's the rhetorical equivalent of a game of Operation.
scrollaway 10y ago
That seems like a super weird comparison? There's some odd local conclusions being drawn/methodology being used but it doesn't seem to me to be the point of the article. Mostly what it gives is a run down of how else you can perceive these things about Trump. What the author seems to be concerned with is: How does a guy that is blatantly evil in many ways in the eyes of so many people actually get a large percent of the vote? How did we get there? It's making a pretty solid case that there is a lot of either baseless or unnecessary attacks against Trump's character which dilute the actual issues. Or maybe I'm extrapolating from what I believe is already the case, but it does give some other perspectives. It doesn't matter that these perspectives "fall apart", the author isn't actually defending Trump. When you talk about perspective, it could be written by a bowl of soup and still be valid.
- tptacek 10y ago
  It's a super weird comparison if you grant the author's premise and don't read critically. But the author has selected a tendentious premise; there is no setting on the "charitable" knob that allows Alexander to downplay or ignore instances of overt racialist rhetoric from Trump, since the whole point of his piece is to immunize Trump from charges that he's a racialist candidate. I mean, for fuck's sake, he tries to claim that Trump is less racist than Mitt Romney. There nobody in the world who believes that, except for Alexander's readership, who want badly to believe it.
  - scrollaway 10y ago
    I don't know the author but I'm sensing you do and that's causing some bias. My read of it was that the "racist" label is being applied too quickly, too liberally and too often. The question of whether Trump is racist matters less than the issues that arise when a label like that becomes a weapon.