Donald J. Trump: President of the USA Part III Covfefe

[Gingerbeardman]

That is exactly what Du Bois said. It was bad back then.

So at the beginning of your circus you took out a character assasination of him because he is a Marxist.

Nothing about his observations detracts from the fact that it was informed by a crazy Marxist viewpoint which endorsed the horrors of the Soviet Union because the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

To use your logic, people must STFU about Hitler because he identified a couple of genuine bones of contention during his rise to power.

I then noted that, that is the typical example of using Cultural Marxism as a slur to cut out dissenting views.

But that's not how it is being used in this instance. Your listing it as an example is unwarranted.

I illustrated this by asking you to show me exactly what was wrong with Du Bois opinion back then, based on the way black soldiers was treated after the war. In a round about way you and Rietrot have now acknowledged that there was nothing wrong with what he said back then.

Now you are misrepresenting what we both have said.

You realised you could not answer this question because it would prove my point that using Cultural Marxism to exclude certain people from the discourse also results in excluding legitimate views from the discourse as well. This is what I pointed out.

The question proves nothing except figments of your imagination.

My point, despite how hard you tried was never made to connect the Du Bois quote to Trump or anything happening now.

Lol. The dumbass who wrote the article is oh so obviously peddling in cultural Marxism, this has been pointed out to you several times, but you refuse to address the point each time it was brought to your attention. So ya, there will never be any progress because you keep on insisting that you are right while refusing to even examine the evidence that demonstrates that you are wrong. That's not how you argue your point, that's how you demonstrate the art of baka.

My point was always based on that context, and I reiterated this several times, using the word context every single time I posted, please show me what was wrong with Du Bois quote back then in the context of it then, so I could show you that painting someone as a Cultural Marxist does also exclude valid points.

I listed the premises and numbered them. I don't recall you responding to the list.

https://mybroadband.co.za/forum/thr...he-usa-part-iii-covfefe.1003908/post-23920819

So please quote me precisely on where I drew a direct connection between the Du Bois quote or its specific context of that time to Trump or anything today. This was in your head. You assumed from my first post that I was connecting Du Bois to Trump and contemporary politics and ignored my actual point.

So wait, you're saying now you don't mean to stand by the words in the article that you quoted for the entire thread to read? So why were you quoting it, Buka? As an example of cultural Marxism?

https://mybroadband.co.za/forum/thr...he-usa-part-iii-covfefe.1003908/post-23916645

https://mybroadband.co.za/forum/thr...he-usa-part-iii-covfefe.1003908/post-23917295

Notice how you went on a rampage? Can't even observe the author's political inclinations before Buka throws his toys out the cot.

 

[rietrot]

Quote me where I said that?

Ja,no. That was a general trend during this hole thing. If you didn't specificly say that or try and do that then I apologise for associating and/or confusing you with cerebus and any other crazy that might have participated in this discussion.

 

[Emjay]

Incitement - the action of provoking unlawful behaviour or urging someone to behave unlawfully.

Urging - telling followers to beat up a protester.
Provoking - telling the country as President that they are under invasion by Mexican immigrants. Claiming that a Muslim congresswoman is sympathetic to 9/11 terrorists and smiling while they chant about sending her home.

https://nypost.com/2016/07/08/obama-should-stop-smearing-cops-by-calling-them-racist/

It's clear as day. Obama incited the anti-white guy who killed a bunch of white cops in Dallas by repeatedly claiming the police are racist, and that killings were racially driven when there was zero evidence of it. False narratives are an incitement to violence according to your post, so this clearly qualifies.

Inflammatory, false claims about police racism not only endanger the lives of police officers, they can also lead to higher crime rates — especially in heavily black areas. If Obama really cares about poor blacks, he should be more careful getting his facts right.

 

[buka001]

Nothing about his observations detracts from the fact that it was informed by a crazy Marxist viewpoint which endorsed the horrors of the Soviet Union because the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

To use your logic, people must STFU about Hitler because he identified a couple of genuine bones of contention during his rise to power.


But that's not how it is being used in this instance. Your listing it as an example is unwarranted.


Now you are misrepresenting what we both have said.


The question proves nothing except figments of your imagination.


Lol. The dumbass who wrote the article is oh so obviously peddling in cultural Marxism, this has been pointed out to you several times, but you refuse to address the point each time it was brought to your attention. So ya, there will never be any progress because you keep on insisting that you are right while refusing to even examine the evidence that demonstrates that you are wrong. That's not how you argue your point, that's how you demonstrate the art of baka.


I listed the premises and numbered them. I don't recall you responding to the list.


So wait, you're saying now you don't mean to stand by the words in the article that you quoted for the entire thread to read? So why were you quoting it, Buka? As an example of cultural Marxism?

I found the piece interesting, but I never said I agree with it all. I enjoyed the historical anecdotes.

You are the one who then grabbed the piece, all triggered, screaming Cultural Marxism lol!!

Thing is I think you never read the quote in the context it was used. You saw his name, got triggered and burst out laughing at le Cultural Marxism.

I saw this and knowing full well that the quote used and the context it was used was a legitimate criticism of the racism of the 1920's America, as the treatment of returning black soldiers was bad (Thanks Rietrot).

No other quote of his was used anywhere else in that piece, so I seized the opportunity to illustrate how your views on Cultural Marxism can lead to cutting out legitimate views or opinions. To show you your cognitive dissonance. Because as Rietrot and you agree it was bad then, so a comment from Du Bois about it being bad is legitimate, is it not?

I never used any other quote from him. I only ever stressed that quote in that context. Repeatedly. In every response to you and Em.

Never did I say anything about Trump and Du Bois. You kept saying that. A classic case of the starman argument.

The only time I veered away from this was to answer your question about another quote of his, not from that piece, if I thougut it was legitimate. That was another one of your sidetracks fighting the strawman you had so wonderfully built up.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

I found the piece interesting, but I never said I agree with it all. I enjoyed the historical anecdotes.

You are the one who then grabbed the piece, all triggered, screaming Cultural Marxism lol!!

No, actually I made a snarky remark asking you if it as all just a coincedence, and you that set you off on your high horse.

Thing is I think you never read the quote in the context it was used. You saw his name, got triggered and burst out laughing at le Cultural Marxism.

No other quote of his was used anywhere else in that piece, so I seized the opportunity to illustrate how your views on Cultural Marxism can lead to cutting out legitimate views or opinions. To show you your cognitive dissonance. Because as Rietrot and you agree it was bad then, so a comment from Du Bois about it being bad is legitimate, is it not?

The thing that you don't appreciate about that the quote in the context that it was used is that it is not actually germane to what is happening today, but it is a way to invoke all the other worldview baggage that underwrote Du Bois' claims, which today is very much alive and well in the form of cultural Marxist activists who like nothing better than to quote Du Bois while they propagate their poison.

I have challenged you several times to explain why the author thinks it is okay to connect Trump with white supremacy, but you don't answer this. The answer that I have suggested, is "cultural Marxism". So far you've done nothing to dispute this characterisation. My point, as far as I can tell, was rather easily proven.

I never used any other quote from him. I only ever stressed that quote in that context. Repeatedly. In every response to you and Em.

But the context is irrelevant to the point the article is trying to make. Trump didn't write any racist acts into law, last I checked.

Never did I say anything about Trump and Du Bois. You kept saying that. A classic case of the starman argument.

Which part of the article did you endorse? State it plainly please. You so far only deny what you haven't done, but say nothing about what you did do or what you will stand behind.

The only time I veered away from this was to answer your question about another quote of his, not from that piece, if I thougut it was legitimate. That was another one of your sidetracks fighting the strawman you had so wonderfully built up.

You mean this:

In remarks delivered at the White House on Monday, Trump explicitly denounced white supremacy, just as he eventually did after first praising the “very fine people” at the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, two years ago this weekend. (He reverted to form a few months later by referring to Haiti and African countries as “shitholes.”) Just as he criticized people who chanted, about Ilhan Omar, “Send her back!,” at a rally three weeks ago. (He followed that by reversing that criticism and launching more racist tweets a week later.) Trump’s mindless belligerence, his perilous and ignorant world view, and, particularly, his use of inflammatory racist rhetoric are rightly seen as alarming. The Presidency is the most esteemed and powerful platform in the country, and it is reasonable to see a relationship between the President’s imprimatur and the ballistic bedlam that regularly erupts and targets people and groups for whom he has expressed contempt.

You can't justify that conclusion without importing cultural Marxist ideology, Buka. You haven't shown how its done, but on the other hand I have shown you the how with respect to the way this claim is grounded in cultural Marxism.

And you have yet to explain why my observation is in any way inaccurate.

 

[Emjay]

Never did I say anything about Trump and Du Bois. You kept saying that. A classic case of the starman argument.

You posted an article which lambastes Trump for incitement (Trump is mentioned by name 21 times in that article) while most of MSM is lambasting Trump for incitement. But, you link the article to not add to the conversation around the incitement, but to rather educate us on the intersection of the civil rights movemenet and white supremacisim?

Sure, Jan.

 

[buka001]

No, actually I made a snarky remark asking you if it as all just a coincedence, and you that set you off on your high horse.


The thing that you don't appreciate about that the quote in the context that it was used is that it is not actually germane to what is happening today, but it is a way to invoke all the other worldview baggage that underwrote Du Bois' claims, which today is very much alive and well in the form of cultural Marxist activists who like nothing better than to quote Du Bois while they propagate their poison.

I have challenged you several times to explain why the author thinks it is okay to connect Trump with white supremacy, but you don't answer this. The answer that I have suggested, is "cultural Marxism". So far you've done nothing to dispute this characterisation. My point, as far as I can tell, was rather easily proven.


But the context is irrelevant to the point the article is trying to make. Trump didn't write any racist acts into law, last I checked.


Which part of the article did you endorse? State it plainly please. You so far only deny what you haven't done, but say nothing about what you did do or what you will stand behind.



You mean this:


You can't justify that conclusion without importing cultural Marxist ideology, Buka. You haven't shown how its done, but on the other hand I have shown you the how with respect to the way this claim is grounded in cultural Marxism.

And you have yet to explain why my observation is in any way inaccurate.

I never endorsed the article.

I enjoyed the historical anecdotes.

You chose to strawman the argument.

I saw your point and saw it was a fantastic opportunity to show your cognitive dissonance.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

I never endorsed the article.

I enjoyed the historical anecdotes.

You chose to strawman the argument.

You said it was insightful. What insight did it offer?

 

[buka001]

You posted an article which lambastes Trump for incitement (Trump is mentioned by name 21 times in that article) while most of MSM is lambasting Trump for incitement. But, you link the article to not add to the conversation around the incitement, but to rather educate us on the intersection of the civil rights movemenet and white supremacisim?

Sure, Jan.

Quote me where I said that Trump is a white supremacist.

I found the historical aspect insightful and that is all I have commented on.

 

[buka001]

You said it was insightful. What insight did it offer?

Historical anecdotes were insightful.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Historical anecdotes were insightful.

How?

 

[buka001]

How?

The historical roots of the movement. Provided some interesting insight, I was not well aware of.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

The historical roots of the movement. Provided some interesting insight, I was not well aware of.

Ok. Let's take that claim at face value.

I don't see what that insight really has to do with Donald Trump. And I would hope you now have a better idea of what people are talking about when they say that something is "cultural Marxism", because that piece by virtue of the way it structures the claims that Trump bears responsibility for mass shootings, is eminently cultural Marxist.

You don't get there without adopting several of the premises that I quoted from that blog post on what critical theory is.

And I'm very glad that you've acknowledged that people were responding to real problems before the civil rights act, irrespective of whatever other baggage might have accompanied their worldviews. And hopefully some of that insight you're looking for will rub itself off on you enough that you realise that just because you don't agree with someone's political persuasions (neo-Nazi etc.) that you won't discount the things they're complaining about out of hand simply because you have a problem with their political persuasion and you think the problem could serve as fuel to further it.

 

[buka001]

Ok. Let's take that claim at face value.

I don't see what that insight really has to do with Donald Trump. And I would hope you now have a better idea of what people are talking about when they say that something is "cultural Marxism", because that piece by virtue of the way it structures the claims that Trump bears responsibility for mass shootings, is eminently cultural Marxist.

You don't get there without adopting several of the premises that I quoted from that blog post on what critical theory is.

And I'm very glad that you've acknowledged that people were responding to real problems before the civil rights act, irrespective of whatever other baggage might have accompanied their worldviews. And hopefully some of that insight you're looking for will rub itself off on you enough that you realise that just because you don't agree with someone's political persuasions (neo-Nazi etc.) that you won't discount the things they're complaining about out of hand simply because you have a problem with their political persuasion and you think the problem could serve as fuel to further it.

I knew the Trump part would spark interesting debate, although not the one we had. I just couldn't resist exposing your bad faith debating tactics (strawman and poisoning the well) when you handed it to me on a silver platter.

I do not subscribe to the overall view of that piece.

I believe Trump has unwittingly emboldened some of the racist rhetoric through his ignorant way of playing to his supporters to gain popularity, secure votes. People have not become racist because of Trump, many of them just feel they can express their racism more overtly.

In my view the phrase, never attribute malice, that is adequately explained by stupidity, holds true for Trump.

 

[S7wede]

I knew the Trump part would spark interesting debate, although not the one we had. I just couldn't resist exposing your bad faith debating tactics (strawman and poisoning the well) when you handed it to me on a silver platter.

I do not subscribe to the overall view of that piece.

I believe Trump has unwittingly emboldened some of the racist rhetoric through his ignorant way of playing to his supporters to gain popularity, secure votes. People have not become racist because of Trump, many of them just feel they can express their racism more overtly.

In my view the phrase, never attribute malice, that is adequately explained by stupidity, holds true for Trump.

I think this has been your fairest assessment of this entire debacle so far. Nobody has ever denied that racists exist, but it's simply not true that the republican base is racist.

 

[Emjay]

The historical roots of the movement. Provided some interesting insight, I was not well aware of.

If you say so, then I am not going to argue with you. But you also need to realize this there was zero way of distiunguishing that when you initially posted the article.

I know you are steeped in history, and I have enjoyed some of your stuff on the history of the Nazis. However, maybe don't steep yourself in the writings of such people, and try post a little more balanced views. If you posted something with a little less bias, I can guarantee you there would have been interest. The journalist that wrote that article is rabidly anti-Trump, and Du Bois, is, well, Du Bois.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

I knew the Trump part would spark interesting debate, although not the one we had. I just couldn't resist exposing your bad faith debating tactics (strawman and poisoning the well) when you handed it to me on a silver platter.

It wasn't bad faith, and I didn't poison the well.

Again, you have yet to actually challenge the substance of my characterisation. It's not wrong just because you think it isn't fair. Facts don't care about your feelings.

I believe Trump has unwittingly emboldened some of the racist rhetoric through his ignorant way of playing to his supporters to gain popularity, secure votes. People have not become racist because of Trump, many of them just feel they can express their racism more overtly.

Ya, anti-racism is a spent political force.

 

[buka001]

If you say so, then I am not going to argue with you. But you also need to realize this there was zero way of distiunguishing that when you initially posted the article.

I know you are steeped in history, and I have enjoyed some of your stuff on the history of the Nazis. However, maybe don't steep yourself in the writings of such people, and try post a little more balanced views. If you posted something with a little less bias, I can guarantee you there would have been interest. The journalist that wrote that article is rabidly anti-Trump, and Du Bois, is, well, Du Bois.

Fair enough, I could have expressed more of my own view of the article, as I posted it.

 

[buka001]

It wasn't bad faith, and I didn't poison the well.

Again, you have yet to actually challenge the substance of my characterisation. It's not wrong just because you think it isn't fair. Facts don't care about your feelings.


Ya, anti-racism is a spent political force.

 

[cerebus]

I think this has been your fairest assessment of this entire debacle so far. Nobody has ever denied that racists exist, but it's simply not true that the republican base is racist.

A non-trivial part of it certainly is.