Trump isn't responsible for how people interpret his words. What matters is his words and what he meant to communicate. People will twist whatever they can to attack you no matter what you say. It's wrong. Don't make excuses for people being dishonest. Don't blame people for what others like, say, or do.
Let me just say that the title, The Undercurrent, references a very nefarious idea. The idea is that whoever the Left disagrees with is evil just because they disagree. That is the undercurrent. They are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Then you get to misinterpret whatever they say to claim evidence of that fact. Even if they say, "white supremacists should be rejected totally" that is just evidence that they aren't aware of how racist they are. That is the undercurrent. I reject that whole idea. People are to be judged as individuals based on their own words and deeds. Not based on your assumption of their guilt. If you are involved in claiming dog whistles and undercurrents of some sin, you are the one who is guilty of sin because you are the one slandering and lieing about their character.
You are correct. Most people judge illegal aliens because they broke the law. Personally, I think there's more to the issue than that because we also have the criminal enterprises that hire them in order to screw American citizens, but your point is correct. The immigrants are mostly judged for the illegality of their conduct, not their race or ethnicity.
Even if they were black males, I'd look beyond their color. For example, if a black dude was walking down the street dressed and acting like a normal person, I wouldn't fear him. I'd assume that he had a legitimate reason to be walking the street just like I would. If he was walking down the street dressed and acting like a thug, then I'd fear him. I'd assume he was up to no good.
I agree with what you're saying, but that doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with anything Trump says. The criticisms are wildly overblown by the Left (meaning Democrats and especially the political media). However, he does leave room for legitimate criticism. I didn't like the thrashing Kanye West and Chance the Rapper (even though I'm not a fan of either of them) got for saying it was ok for blacks to think for themselves and vote Republican. I thought it was racist and unfair to them and very insulting and demeaning to black people in general. Well, Trump sorta did the same thing with Jews with his comment. That's a problem, and it's worthy of criticism. Does that mean the criticism is coming in good faith from the media? Hell no. They're full of double standards and ******** as I've already illustrated. However, my criticism is being made in good faith, and I think NJ's are too.
Not "a" black dude walking down the street. Five blacks standing at the end of an alley. Add "at night in a dimly lit alley" to the scenario. Then what?
I'm probably staying away, but even that isn't racial. It's more about the situation and appearance. If they looked like this guy, I'd still stay away.
It is racial, but a lesser form. They same applies to a black dude walking into a group of the Aryan Brotherhood. The point is that is that having a limited amount of prejudice about individuals is actually important sometimes. It is expensive to gain specific knowledge about individuals. You just don't want to pay with your life.
Ok, I'll rephrase it. He leaves a very large amount of room (even compared to other politicians) for very fair and reasonable criticism that is very easy to make without engaging in rabid partisanship and double standards.
I agree totally. I have no problem with profiling. We all profile everyday, and we'd be foolish not to. However, I don't follow your logic that it's racial rather than cultural and/or behavioral.
Context of the situation is important. Are they in business suits, or hoodies with their pants halfway down their asses for example. What if they are in tee shirts and jeans, but still hanging out in a dimly lit alley way? White, black, or brown? Are you discriminating based on the empirical evidence known about a group based on race or skin color, or purely on behavior? If you know blacks between 20 and 24 commit an unusually high percentage of crimes, do you saunter on down to them even if they are dressed like some prep-school white kids? Are you more likely to approach if they are white and wearing the same clothes?
If they're wearing T-shirts and jeans but still hanging out in a dimly-lit alley, I'm probably staying away no matter what color they are. Like you said, context matters. If you're hanging out in a dark alley without a clear reason to be there, I'm assuming you're up to no good. I understand where you're heading with this. You are correct that purely from a statistical standpoint, young black men commit a disproportionate amount of the violent crime in the United States, so if you see a black guy on the street, he's lot more likely to be dangerous than a white guy is. However, I think that likely reflects itself in behavior and outward appearance. The young black guy is more likely to be violent but also more likely to be dressed thuggishly and acting thuggishly. However, if he is dressed normally and seems to have a legitimate reason to be there (such as taking out the garbage), I'm not going to assume he's dangerous just because he's black.
I'm so old I can remember Jesse Jackson saying he would be less comfortable with a couple of black guys coming towards him on the street vs. a couple of white guys.
I remember that too. I'm even old enough to remember when Jesse Jackson was pro-life. Sorta like an Alzheimers patient, he has had moments of lucidity and sanity. Not many in recent years.
Based on the statistics of who is aborted, Jesse Jackson should still be anti-abortion. He could even use a cool slogan like Black Lives Matter.
