Lots of folks are all too happy to make all sorts of ridiculous conflations, yes. — Terrapin Station

The distinction between a racist and a paid, professional who knowingly enabled racism and gave no evidence of disapproval is a distinction without a difference in some people's pragmatic political judgment. To armchair logic choppers, it makes a big difference.

Would you hire a paid professional who knowingly ran a site that regularly featured child porn (and gave no evidence of disapproval) for a babysitter?

Would you hire a paid professional who knowingly ran a site that regularly featured child porn (and gave no evidence of disapproval) for a babysitter? — Brainglitch

Imagining that I'd have the opinion on child porn that you're expecting me to have, that fact wouldn't disqualify them.

Well, they're your kids.

What I should have asked, more analogously to the Bannon situation, is do you think it would be prudent to hire the child porn enabler who never expressed disapproval to, say, run a day care center?

LOL--why would it make a difference if it were a day care center? Anyway, the analogy from the start has a number of problems, but let's pretend that it doesn't. However, I have to ask what a "child porn enabler" would amount to in order to be able to answer. Are we pretending for one that child porn isn't illegal in this scenario?

Sorry, not interested in developing the analogy.

The Bannon issue is a pragmatic political judgment, and as I noted, the distinction between whether he is a racist or just worked to enable racists is a distinction without a difference. People don't want somebody who made money enabling racists any more than they want a racist in such an influential position. Besides we have no reason to believe that he is not a racist, and much reason to infer that he is, including testimony from his wife.

Bannon is a school yard bully compared to what damage Myron Ebell could do to our country, and our planet.

Sorry, not interested in developing the analogy. — Brainglitch

Okay, but you brought it up.

as I noted, the distinction between whether he is a racist or just worked to enable racists is a distinction without a difference — Brainglitch

Which is nonsense, but okay, so you're not just arguing that many people are intellectually lazy, you're saying that you are, too.

The New Trump Reality TV Show continues.

Though, somewhat compromised about certain aspects of that reality thingy.

Which is nonsense, but okay, so you're not just arguing that many people are intellectually lazy, you're saying that you are, too. — Terrapin Station

To insist pedantically that the paramount issue is the technical invalidity of the conclusion that Bannon is a racist is to ignore the evidence consistent with the conclusion, and to be blind to the political context in which the distinction without a difference is a pragmatic value judgment, not a matter of being intellectually lazy. Given the evidence, it is not intellectually lazy to judge that Bannon's either being a racist or actively enabling racists renders him unfit for such high national office.

to ignore the evidence consistent with the conclusion, — Brainglitch

Such as?

the distinction without a difference — Brainglitch

What the heck does that phrase refer to?

And this isn't a matter of value judgment. It's a matter of whether someone believes particular things or not.

actively enabling racists renders him unfit for such high national office. — Brainglitch

Why would that be the case? Aren't you in favor of freedom of speech when it's controversial?

So, I'll answer the OP, which was directed to me, yet took the expected turn of becoming a debate about whether Israel should exist. The question is whether I oppose Trump's decision to appoint Bannon because he MIGHT be anti Semitic.

My general view is that few are pure of thought and that racism, xenophobia, and even sexism fill everyone's lovely hearts. I find the desperate search for the disqualification of human beings from various roles disgusting and hypocritical. That is not to say that I'd fully accept an open Jew hater, but it is to say I'm not willing to engage in a witch hunt largely designed to prove the given narrative that Trump is actually a Klansman who interacts with neo Nazis.

Prove to me Bannon hates me and I'll hate him back, but suggest to me he hates Jews and I won't care. The truth is that at some level we all hate each other, but I'm content accepting what appears at and just below the surface and not in distilling out every difference we have so that we can justify hating one another.

And the subtext here might give you an understanding of why Trump supporters are able to support him and why the media so failed in garnering the hate for him they so wanted to drum up.

I'm still on page one, and I noticed that some of the people who have replied said that they hadn't seen any quotes indicative of antisemitism, sexism, homophobia, and that sort of thing. Well, after reading that reply by Bitter Crank, I have.

Fair enough. What constitutes as proof? If seems that some believe only actual racist remarks count as proof for racism. When is somebody an anti-Semite?

I didn't know that Hanover was a Jew... that explains EVERYTHING.

I think the major critique of Bannon points basically what kind of articles are there to be found at Breitbart. And basically that he's not alarmed of those kind of articles.

Otherwise critique of Bannon being a racist is that people say his a bully and that his ex-wife said that " he doesn't like the way they raise their kids to be 'whiny brats' and that he didn't want the girls going to school with Jews". Bannon has denied this. (See 5 Points On What You Need To Know About Steve Bannon, Trump's Top WH Adviser)

Is the Georgetown graduate, Harvard Business School MBA, naval officer and Goldman Sachs guy (yes, Goldman Sachs) truly a white supremacist? I doubt it. But what he is, is a guy on a crusade. Who sees the nation as divided and who basically divides (himself) the nation.

There are some speeches available from the guy, and I think the following from 2011 tells very well his views and Worldview well, especially when the speech is given far before the current elections and well before the United States turned into Trumpland. First he (quite correctly) describes the Financial Crisis and the outrageous way it was handled. He also describes his documentaries: how clueless the "OWS"-youngster were (because of the educational system), how Sarah Palin came from humble roots and challenged the local (Alaskan) elite, how the Tea Party is made of ordinary people and how socialism in America works for the poor, but also for the very rich. That the US is a divided country comes very well in the end.

If one has 24 minutes to spend (waste?), I think it tells well just what kind of guy Bannon is.


At least I'll say that he isn't the typical right-wing demagogue that only can reurgitate the same stupid talking points that they all do. And knows far more about the World than Trump (which isn't actually something spectacular).

I'm still on page one, and I noticed that some of the people who have replied said that they hadn't seen any quotes indicative of antisemitism, sexism, homophobia, and that sort of thing. Well, after reading that reply by Bitter Crank, I have. — Sapientia

If he said, for example, what his wife claims he said about Jews, I would say that's "racist," but the problem with it is that it's hearsay, and in the context of someone probably wanting to paint the other person in a bad light.

I think the major critique of Bannon points basically what kind of articles are there to be found at Breitbart. And basically that he's not alarmed of those kind of articles. — ssu

I'm not "alarmed" by them, either. As I've mentioned a number of times, I'm a free speech/free expression absolutist, and I think it's important for free speech that speech is "aired" that is controversial, that many people are uncomfortable with.

If he said, for example, what his wife claims he said about Jews, I would say that's "racist," but the problem with it is that it's hearsay, and in the context of someone probably wanting to paint the other person in a bad light. — Terrapin Station

What about the sexist and homophobic quote which came straight from the horses mouth? And the quote about victimhood seems to have an undercurrent of discrimination, like he's trying to turn the tables and undermine legitimate grievances. And he chose to single out race, sexual preference, and gender, rather than anything else...

What about the sexist and homophobic quote which came straight from the horses mouth? — Sapientia

You mean the quote that begins with "Are there racist people involved in the alt-right? Absolutely." There's nothing racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. about that quote.

Re "They wouldn’t be a bunch of dykes that came from the 7 Sisters schools" he's denigrating a certain personality type. He's not saying anything about women in general, or homosexual women in general.

Re "They’re either a victim of race. They’re victim of their sexual preference. They’re a victim of gender. All about victimhood and the United States is the great oppressor, not the great liberator.” He's talking about the victim mentality that a lot of people have, fostered by the PC and SJW movements. Again, that's not about race, gender, etc. It's about a particular mentality in an ideological context.

You mean the quote that begins with "Are there racist people involved in the alt-right? Absolutely." There's nothing racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. about that quote. — Terrapin Station

No, I mean:

“That’s one of the unintended consequences of the women’s liberation movement––that, in fact, the women that would lead this country would be feminine, they would be pro-family, they would have husbands, they would love their children. They wouldn’t be a bunch of dykes that came from the 7 Sisters schools.”

That is sexist and homophobic, and you can stick your apologetics where the sun doesn't shine.

Re "They’re either a victim of race. They’re victim of their sexual preference. They’re a victim of gender. All about victimhood and the United States is the great oppressor, not the great liberator.” He's talking about the victim mentality that a lot of people have, fostered by the PC and SJW movements. Again, that's not about race, gender, etc. It's about a particular mentality in an ideological context. — Terrapin Station

That one isn't as clearcut, but you have to read between the lines, consider what his motives might have been and what might have influenced him, and take into account his other comments.

That is sexist and homophobic, and you can stick your apologetics where the sun doesn't shine. — Sapientia

I addressed that one, too. It's neither. Again, it's denigrating a particular personality type, and in contradistinction to a particular other set of (traditionally "conservative") values. Re it being about a personality type, well, and ideology, there's a reason he mentioned the "7 sisters schools."

Re the victim thing, the motives are the utter ridiculousness of the PC/SJW movements.

What is ridiculous is your apologetics. He chose to use a derogatory term for people of a particular gender and sexual preference, and he used it in a discrimatory manner. His pathetic characterisations are very much indicative of sexism and homophobia.

He chose to use a derogatory term for people of a particular gender and sexual preference, — Sapientia

The term wasn't applied to everyone of a particular gender or sexual preference. It was applied to a particular a particular personality/ideological stance--hence, the "7 sisters schools" reference, which otherwise would make no sense. Your comments are typical of SJWists' inability to understand simple expression.

The term wasn't applied to everyone of a particular gender or sexual preference. It was applied to a particular a particular personality/ideological stance--hence, the "7 sisters schools" reference, which otherwise would make no sense. Your comments are typical of SJWists' inability to understand simple expression. — Terrapin Station

Doesn't matter. If I say that the black people that would lead this country wouldn't be a bunch niggers who support the Black Lives Matter movement, then that would strongly suggest that I am a racist. And if you disagree, then that would strongly suggest something else about you, but I have moderated my original comment.

Then that would strongly suggest that I am a racist. — Sapientia

To you, but you have an SJW mentality in a lot of comments you're making. That mentality is rather what suggests that someone is an idiot.

For one, simply using a term like "nigger" is not at all indicative that one is a racist. That's one of the idiocies of the SJW movement. That kind of stupidity is how we've gotten into this mess in the first place. It's how we end up with nonsense like LeBron having a problem with the word "posse" a couple days ago.

To you, but you have an SJW mentality in a lot of comments you're making. That mentality is rather what suggests that someone is an idiot. — Terrapin Station

Sure, all the decent folks are the idiots, and those who make sexist, racist, homophobic, etc., remarks are the clever ones, and they have you as their white knight.

For one, simply using a term like "nigger" is not at all indicative that one is a racist. — Terrapin Station

I agree. That's why I also pointed out the manner in which he used the term "dyke" which is analogous to the term "nigger" in my example.

Prove to me Bannon hates me and I'll hate him back, but suggest to me he hates Jews and I won't care. The truth is that at some level we all hate each other, but I'm content accepting what appears at and just below the surface and not in distilling out every difference we have so that we can justify hating one another. — Hanover

That is a brilliant response. (Y)

Sure, all the decent folks are the idiots, — Sapientia

SJWists are by no means "decent folks" in my opinion.

agree. That's why I also pointed out the manner in which he used the term "dyke" which is analogous to the term "nigger" in my example. — Sapientia

Glad you agree, but there's nothing in your example that entails racism.

Which cultural features do you regard as inferior and which superior?
And what 'inferior' features does Palestinian culture have that justifies eliminating it?

What exactly is the relevant difference between managing and promoting an organization noted as a platform for racist, (as well as sexist, and xenophobic) material--and "being" a racist? — Brainglitch

It's the difference between allowing someone to say a view in one's house and saying that view oneself. Should all private property be dictatorial states?