3 ms·

Trump is not about “racism.” He won more racial minorities in 2024 than any republican president in modern history. Trump is about Americanism versus third-worl

by rayiner 2mo ago

Trump is not about “racism.” He won more racial minorities in 2024 than any republican president in modern history. Trump is about Americanism versus third-worldism. Among immigrants themselves—half of whom voted for Trump in 2024–it’s about whether immigrants should Anglicize and dissolve into the American polity, or whether they should bring their home cultures with them and retain their separate ethnocultural identity. Fundamentally, it’s a disagreement over what makes countries the way they are. Does a Bangladeshi start thinking and acting like an American the minute they set foot within borders where the 1st, 2nd, etc., amendments apply? Or is culture deeper than the words on paper.

pixl97 2mo ago
>Trump is not about “racism.” He won more racial minorities "Of course I'm not racist, I have black friends" ... I have a family member that is a naturalized citizen. They were in the country illegally for 2 decades before that, and they are the first one to yell "kick those lazy illegals out". So just because someone is the same race/culture as you doesn't mean they aren't racist against that culture. What's really fucking stupid about this guy is the people he loves to vote for are the ones that would strip his rights and kick him out of the country in a heartbeat for. Remember when America was a melting pot and not a bunch of redhats goose stepping in line?
- rayiner 2mo ago
  > Of course I'm not racist, I have black friends It’s weird that you think my point is about the superficial optics of having immigrants in Trump’s coalition, rather than about the motivations of the immigrant voters themselves. > So just because someone is the same race/culture as you doesn't mean they aren't racist against that culture You can’t be “racist” against a culture. Racism is wrong because race is superficial—how much sunscreen someone does or does not need is as irrelevant as hair color or eye color. But culture isn’t superficial. Culture has major impacts on the types of societies people create. Your family member’s viewpoint is totally rational, and frankly, more rational than the opposite. If you come from a country that’s dysfunctional and unsuccessful, why wouldn’t you dislike that place’s culture? It’s like someone who left some failing dinosaur company to go to a high performance startup saying that the culture at the new company is better.
  - mullingitover 2mo ago
    > You can’t be “racist” against a culture. Counterpoint: yes you can[1] and it's basically what you're advocating. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_racism
    - crises-luff-6b 2mo ago
      [dead]
    - rayiner 2mo ago
      Your article clearly describes that as a concept that as been put forward for debate but hasn’t been generally accepted. And it shouldn’t be accepted. It’s just an attempt to use people’s rightful aversion to prejudice based on skin color to Trojan Horse cultural relativism through the gate. Cultural relativism is not morally required. People’s attitudes, beliefs, customs, habits, and ways of looking at the world substantively impact the societies people create. And we can judge cultures on that basis. In the Star Trek future, people of all ethnicities think and act like Anglo-Americans, not like Bangladeshis.
      - mullingitover 2mo ago
        > In the Star Trek future, people of all ethnicities think and act like Anglo-Americans, not like Bangladeshis. That's a weird way to cap off an endorsement of cultural racism? A series of fictional stories about the future, by and for Americans, tells a story that Americans would want to hear: QED, monolithic American culture is obviously the future. Let's get this paper submitted for peer review.
        rayiner 2mo ago
        That term isn’t an accepted thing, as your own article points out. Your idea is also itself racist by treating race and culture as linked. I guess that in your version of Star Trek the Desi characters would be showing up hours late to dinner. You’d have bridge scenes where face saving communications and excessive deference to seniority impedes information flow and gets everyone killed. I think the actual Star Trek paints a much more optimistic and hopeful vision of a post-racial society where everyone in the Federation adopts Anglo-American culture and values.
- motbus3 2mo ago
  I honestly think he is not racist. He does not even consider no billionaires as people.
  - rileymat2 2mo ago
    He did settle with the DOJ over claims of housing discrimination while president of the company. Whether he approved of the policies or knew about them, I have no idea.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]

by rayiner 2mo ago

pixl97 2mo ago

>Trump is not about “racism.” He won more racial minorities "Of course I'm not racist, I have black friends" ... I have a family member that is a naturalized citizen. They were in the country illegally for 2 decades before that, and they are the first one to yell "kick those lazy illegals out". So just because someone is the same race/culture as you doesn't mean they aren't racist against that culture. What's really fucking stupid about this guy is the people he loves to vote for are the ones that would strip his rights and kick him out of the country in a heartbeat for. Remember when America was a melting pot and not a bunch of redhats goose stepping in line?

rayiner 2mo ago
> Of course I'm not racist, I have black friends It’s weird that you think my point is about the superficial optics of having immigrants in Trump’s coalition, rather than about the motivations of the immigrant voters themselves. > So just because someone is the same race/culture as you doesn't mean they aren't racist against that culture You can’t be “racist” against a culture. Racism is wrong because race is superficial—how much sunscreen someone does or does not need is as irrelevant as hair color or eye color. But culture isn’t superficial. Culture has major impacts on the types of societies people create. Your family member’s viewpoint is totally rational, and frankly, more rational than the opposite. If you come from a country that’s dysfunctional and unsuccessful, why wouldn’t you dislike that place’s culture? It’s like someone who left some failing dinosaur company to go to a high performance startup saying that the culture at the new company is better.
- mullingitover 2mo ago
  > You can’t be “racist” against a culture. Counterpoint: yes you can[1] and it's basically what you're advocating. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_racism
  - crises-luff-6b 2mo ago
    [dead]
  - rayiner 2mo ago
    Your article clearly describes that as a concept that as been put forward for debate but hasn’t been generally accepted. And it shouldn’t be accepted. It’s just an attempt to use people’s rightful aversion to prejudice based on skin color to Trojan Horse cultural relativism through the gate. Cultural relativism is not morally required. People’s attitudes, beliefs, customs, habits, and ways of looking at the world substantively impact the societies people create. And we can judge cultures on that basis. In the Star Trek future, people of all ethnicities think and act like Anglo-Americans, not like Bangladeshis.
    - mullingitover 2mo ago
      > In the Star Trek future, people of all ethnicities think and act like Anglo-Americans, not like Bangladeshis. That's a weird way to cap off an endorsement of cultural racism? A series of fictional stories about the future, by and for Americans, tells a story that Americans would want to hear: QED, monolithic American culture is obviously the future. Let's get this paper submitted for peer review.
      - rayiner 2mo ago
        That term isn’t an accepted thing, as your own article points out. Your idea is also itself racist by treating race and culture as linked. I guess that in your version of Star Trek the Desi characters would be showing up hours late to dinner. You’d have bridge scenes where face saving communications and excessive deference to seniority impedes information flow and gets everyone killed. I think the actual Star Trek paints a much more optimistic and hopeful vision of a post-racial society where everyone in the Federation adopts Anglo-American culture and values.
motbus3 2mo ago
I honestly think he is not racist. He does not even consider no billionaires as people.
- rileymat2 2mo ago
  He did settle with the DOJ over claims of housing discrimination while president of the company. Whether he approved of the policies or knew about them, I have no idea.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]