It's really unsettling. I keep thinking I'm going to read retarded posts but I end up reading DDB.

It's really unsettling. I keep thinking I'm going to read retarded posts but I end up reading DDB.

You gonna take that, Zeph?

He didn't say anything bad about Mexicans as a whole, just illegal immigrants, and he didn't limit those descriptions to illegal immigrants from Mexico, but went on to say that illegal immigrants were coming from other countries, including countries located in the Middle East.

Ok, that's not racist, that's just xenophobic, it's not much better.

He wants to temporarily bar Muslims from entering the US and figure out which bad guys we already have here, most likely by not allowing Islamic-majority countries from flying in, which, due to vagueness and loopholes, is federally legal.

No, he doesn't want to "figure out which bad guys we already have". That would be doing what Gary Johnson wants to do - ban immigration from high-risk countries based on how many bad effects immigrants are doing for each country that they come from into America.

And Islam is not a race.

Majority faith is not dealing with race.

Race just means faction nowadays, it's an outdated word. Racist just means discriminating on some cultural aspect. But whatever, what word would you suggest in stead of racist?

Also, there was that one time when Trump wanted to shut down all mosks in America but chose against it.

what word would you suggest instead of racist?

Xenophobic, anti-(enter religion here). Basically, the correct term for the situation.

Also, there was that one time when Trump wanted to shut down all mosks in America but chose against it.

Yeah, he switched from that to wanting to put cameras or guards in them. Since Mosques are gathering places and public and not sacred, I'm not sure if that's legal or not. There's probably some dumb loophole that would make it legal. This would be a case of Islamophobia.

Race just means faction nowadays, it's an outdated word. Racist just means discriminating on some cultural aspect.

No, it doesn't. It means, and has always meant the belief that a race is superior than others.

The fact you perceive the definition of 'racist' has changed is not surprising. You just subconsciously (or maybe you've always known) acknowledged how liberals have been loosely throwing labels like 'racist' , 'misogynist' 'literally Hitler' or 'bigot' on peopel with differing opinions for years, abusing these labels to a point where they no longer hold their true meaning.

Edited 4/10/2016 04:04:53

Xenophobic, anti-(enter religion here). Basically, the correct term for the situation.

It means, and has always meant the belief that a race is superior than others.

Well, not even that. "racist" means discriminating based on "race", but what is "race"? Also, xenophobia and islamphobia, those both mean you're scared of them, not that you hate them. I'm what'd be called in English a "homophobe", but I'm not scared of gays, just dislike them. So these words, eh. Racist is just the blanket word.

A frain: was Hitler racist?

The fact you perceive that the definition of 'racist' has changed means you acknowledge how liberals have been loosely throwing labels like 'racist' , 'misogynist' 'literally Hitler' or 'bigot' on peopel with differing opinions for years, abusing these labels to a point where they no longer hold their true meaning.

Exaggeration is sometimes a problem for English liberalists, as it also is for English conserves, libertarians, and socialists. So what?

Also, meanings change and words evolve. "Lord" no longer means just anyone who shields some bread, and "lady" no longer means just anyone who makes it. Sometimes, these changes come about through exaggeration.

Sometimes, these changes come about through exaggeration.

Its not exaggeration. Exaggeration only applies to word with arbitrary/subjective contexts. (big, small, good, bad.) Racist is absolute. You are either a racist or you are not. Its just downright abusing a word with negative connotations to satisfy your political purpose.

Bernie Sanders makes a racist remark when he says 'White people don't know whats its like to be poor'. It is well established that both white/caucasian and black/negro people are individual races. He is suggesting that the former type of people is unable to experience particular sufferings (poverty) simply because of their race. This is of course, untrue, as there are many poor white people, and therefore racist. Indeed, probably the most racist thing said on the entire campaign.

Exaggeration is sometimes a problem for English liberalists

So you do acknowledge its a problem then? You seem to be encouraging the problem by how loosely you've thrown the word racist in this thread. You called Trump's comment 'more likely just racist' before taking it back a few posts later!

Edited 4/10/2016 04:32:21

Its not exaggeration. Exaggeration only applies to word with arbitrary/subjective contexts. (big, small, good, bad.) Racist is absolute

Trump constantly uses hyperboles and this is what Juq meant by exaggeration, hence he is totally right, and about "racist", Trump never mentionned "racist" as a word in his speeches, what is said here is his overuse of statements with xenophobic/racist tones, so try to not be out of context for once Pulsey.

Bernie Sanders makes a racist remark when he says 'White people don't know whats its like to be poor'

Let's talk about quantity. In terms of demagogic speech, overuse of racist/xenophobic comments, Sanders is not reaching Trump, not even close.

Let's talk about quantity. In terms of demagogic speech, overuse of racist/xenophobic comments, Sanders is not reaching Trump, not even close.

Yes well, except nobody (you included) have yet to provide a comment along with explanation that proves Trump is a racist. Indeed, this is the point of this thread - to find 'racist' statements from Trump. Жұқтыру original.y provided a comment which he thought was 'racist', which he then concedes was 'not racist' after it was debunked.

For the sake of argument, I have provided a comment to argue that Bernie Sanders made a racist remark, an argument which you seem to have accepted when you said 'lets talk about quantity'.

So, to 'talk about quantity', so far Sanders has made 1 racist comment, Trump - none. Are you following?

Trump constantly uses hyperboles and this is what Juq meant by exaggeration, hence he is totally right, and about "racist", Trump never mentionned "racist" as a word in his speeches, what is said here is his overuse of statements with xenophobic/racist tones, so try to not be out of context for once Pulsey.

I don't know what you are trying to say here, I'm not sure if you understood the discussion at all. We were discussing the objectiveness of using a label such as 'racist'. It has nothing to do with Trump mentioning the word 'racist' in his speech.

Edited 4/10/2016 10:57:52

Trump is a racist

Again out of topic, did I ever say Trump was racist? What is denounced here is his statements with racist and xenophobic tones, and by the way he can say things and not believe in what he says (I already mentionned it, many politicians are like him, neglecting their own ideals to attract more electors like Sarkozy did during the 2012 elections, let's be honest this is an even more repugnant behavior).

I have provided a comment to argue that Bernie Sanders made a racist remark, an argument which you seem to have accepted when you said 'lets talk about quantity'.

Yes it is racist, however you have a weird custom to skip the debate everytime, here with the gravity of Trump's statement made all along these elections (can't you see the very title of this thread?). Juq already reminded you some, and you skip it as usual, and you prefer to refuse to debate about the actual topic, by moving it and derailing the debate with Sanders's only racist remark he ever made during these elections. Hence the "quantity" remark, because after all, this is what matters, Sanders can't compete really with Trump in terms of overreaction, racist/xenophobia/hate speeches, demagogia and the list goes on. We can all agree on it. You have to be better on it seriously.

I don't know what you are trying to say here, I'm not sure if you understood the discussion at all. We were discussing the objectiveness of using a label such as 'racist'. It has nothing to do with Trump mentioning the word 'racist' in his speech.

And I am not sure if you understand yourself, you wrote "Exaggeration only applies to word with arbitrary/subjective contexts. (big, small, good, bad.) Racist is absolute" (which is actually wrong since exaggeration can also apply to whole sentences and speech constructions, hence my remark about hyperboles that you seem to totally ignore, if you only ever heard about figures of speech...), we are not debating about the word "racist" but about his "racist statements" or "remarks with racist/xenophobic tones", do you see the whole nuance now? Again you seem to have a real problem with staying in the very topic.

I am not skipping the debate... you are just bringing in new irrelevant arguments on matters that weren't being discussed in the first place. The first time you post you compared Sanders and Trump on xenophobic/racist remarks, then the next post you also include overreactions, hate speech and demagogia and then you accuse me of 'not staying in the topic?'. I don't deny Trump (like every candidate) uses hyperbole, but are we talking about racist remarks here?

So back to the orignial point... if you tell me that Trump isn't a racist, then what has he said with 'racist overtones'?

And who is Juq?

(which is actually wrong since exaggeration can also apply to whole sentences and speech constructions

I don't know what you are trying to argue here...

Hyperbole is saying something like 'The weather today is as hot as the Sun'. Obviously you are exaggerating here, you finding the day hot is subjective, someone may find that it is actually not so hot.

An absolute description is something that is non-debatable and not relative. For example, the table is '1 meters tall'.

And so is racist.

You can't be a little racist or very racist. The definition of racist is absolute. If you believe that a certain race is in some aspect superior to another, you are a racist. You can't exaggerate someone's beliefs until they suddenly become a racist.

Edited 4/10/2016 12:08:03

To the OP: as you can see, no one has provided actual examples yet, because there are none. However, this is a good example of if you say a lie enough, people will think it is truth. I doubt Koala has ever watched a Trump rally. He just hears other people say Trump is racist, and he follows suit. I challenge anyone here to give me a quote (a full quote, with context) that is clearly racist.

who is Juq?

You racist bigot.

I am not skipping the debate.

Oh yes you are.

you are just bringing in new irrelevant arguments on matters that weren't being discussed in the first place

Pulsey the hypocrite is back, you are the one who started bringing irrelevant arguments, my own reply was an answer to your own very comments which illustrate perfectly your weird habits to derail a topic everytime you disagree with someone, bringing something irrelevant within a thread, like you did here with Juq. Hence your words mean nothing when your actions are the complete opposite.

if you tell me that Trump isn't a racist, then what has he said with 'racist overtones'?

Are you illiterate in someway? Did you miss or were unable to read my whole paragraph about politicians and their bad habits to neglect their own ideals to attract a particular electorate?

Hyperbole is saying something like 'The weather today is as hot as the Sun'.

Ahahah. Well you just confirmed you do not know what a hyperbole is. Your example "The weather today is as hot as the Sun" could be defined as an analogy or more precisely a simile (as you use the connecting words "as ... as"). A hyperbole is the very use of exaggeration in a speech, a figure of speech Trump likes to use a lot, so again you were wrong, and Juq here was right. Stop being a stubborn person for once.

You can't be a little racist or very racist. The definition of racist is absolute.

Of course you can be a little racist or very racist, there is a different kind of people, some inclined to agree with some racist views but not everything, and some others with highly racist opinions, this can be for example illustrated with the political spectrum (far right and different tendencies within it).
Again, if you are inventing your own definition of racism, this would be only good for you and your little ego I suppose, but sadly for you nobody will really take what you say into consideration or as something worth it. And you keep skipping the debate and derailing it, the question is not about Trump (or someone else) being racist or not, the debate here is about these racist statements he made or not, not about if Trump is personally/inherently racist, if you do not get again the nuance of it or why you are out of context, I guess you are a hopeless case after all.

And who is Juq?

Juq is Жұқтыру, it is more or less the transliteration of his first 3 letters in Cyrillic, the complete transliteration being "Juqtyru" which means "Infection" in Kazakh (Juq himself could tell you more about his own name here I guess), which is more correct than calling him simply as X or Xyk.

I doubt Koala has ever watched a Trump rally.

I sadly watched a Trump rally once (after all I had to see who was the guy many Americans were prone to vote for) and I will never do it again.

He just hears other people say Trump is racist, and he follows suit.

The argument of the weak.

I challenge anyone here to give me a quote (a full quote, with context) that is clearly racist.

And I challenge you to prove me his speeches were not tinged with racist/xenophobic/hate conveyed messages. Easy to attack others without any worth arguments at all in your own post.

As usual, Angry Koala ignores my entire argument and just repeats himself, whilst going personal and calling me a hypocrite, stubborn, illiterate and a hopeless case with al little ego, and dismissing my opinion as something not 'worth it.'

I'm just going to go through very briefly because it really isn't worth the effort

Pulsey the hypocrite is back, you are the one who started bringing irrelevant arguments,

Where is *your* argument then? Where are these 'racist statements' you keep talking about?

Are you illiterate in someway? Did you miss or were unable to read my whole paragraph about politicians and their bad habits to neglect their own ideals to attract a particular electorate?

Calls me an illterate, then quotes one of my questions and fails to provide an answer, but links me to one of his paragraph which contains no answer either.

Your example "The weather today is as hot as the Sun" could be defined as an analogy or more precisely a simile

It is both a hyperbole and a simile. Hyperbole is merely the application of an extreme exaggeration to argue a point. It is ironic that someone with broken English lectures me on literary devices.

Of course you can be a little racist or very racist, there is a different kind of people, some inclined to agree with some racist views but not everything, and some others with highly racist opinions

How so? If you believe in some 'racist' views, how doesn't that make you a racist? If you commit a small crime, doesn't it make you a criminal? A petty thief is a criminal, as is a mass murderer. One is of course worse than the other, but if you are talking about a blanket term here, than it is absolute.

Again, if you are inventing your own definition of racism,

Its funny, because on the first page I was accusing 'Juq' and liberals like you of changing the definition of racism to satisfy their own political agenda.

nd you keep skipping the debate and derailing it, the question is not about Trump (or someone else) being racist or not, the debate here is about these racist statements he made or not, not about if Trump is personally/inherently racist,

This is correct, and for the third time in a row, you have yet to bring any of these so called 'racist statements' on the table.

Very sad arguing with you, always the same.

Edited 4/10/2016 13:47:07

I challenge anyone here to give me a quote (a full quote, with context) that is clearly racist.


And I challenge you to prove me his speeches were not tinged with racist/xenophobic/hate conveyed messages. Easy to attack others without any worth arguments at all in your own post.

There is so much open and direct hypocrisy here it is laughable.

You say 'easy to attack others with any worth arguments' and yet...

You attack Trump for making 'racist statements' and bring no arguments at all on the subject.

And look the title of this thread is about 'racist statements' but you talk about xenophobic and hate conveyed message too. And you accuse me of derailing the topic.

Edited 4/10/2016 13:53:34

Yup. Kellen got what he wanted. He wanted to get a bunch of people to call each other hypocrites and idiots and he succeeded.

Congrats.

As usual, Angry Koala ignores my entire argument and just repeats himself,

Was I the one ignoring entire arguments? Thought it was you, after all if I had to repeat myself it is just because you keep ignoring my paragraphs and keep not answering me or skipping the confrontation with irrelevant arguments. About you, I have the feeling I am talking to a deaf person really, or you have at least a selective brain which cannot simply read some sentences, hence your biased answers.

Where is *your* argument then? Where are these 'racist statements' you keep talking about?

About those "racist statements" we had time to debate about it in many other threads, like the ones about the Muslim ban or the Mexican hateful speech (something Juq reminded it to you but you kept nonetheless to skip it everytime anyway), your only argument here was to say "oh look, Sanders also had a racist statement", which is true, but this is not the right topic unless you are unable to read the very title of this thread.

Calls me an illterate, then quotes one of my questions and fails to provide an answer, but links me to one of his paragraph which contains no answer either.

Boohoo, poor Pulsey not my fault if you are really unable to read an entire paragraph. I gave you an answer you chose to ignore, I told you some politicians purposely choose to neglect their ideals and state things they do not believe personally, Trump is the very politician I was referring to, he is not inherently racist nor he is against abortion (like lately since he changed a lot of opinion like a wind vane!) nonetheless to attract some electors he would take the risk to go against his very ideals, which is a very repugnant behavior.

Btw, "illterate" is usually spelled I-L-L-I-T-E-R-A-T-E. For a native speaker I would start to worry about your own grammar mistakes.

It is both a hyperbole and a simile. Hyperbole is merely the application of an extreme exaggeration to argue a point. It is ironic that someone with broken English lectures me on literary devices.

Let me explain you this now, a hyperbole is the deliberate use of exaggeration to describe something, as for example in the sentence, "this bag weighs a ton." Simile and hyperbole can often be confused, because hyperbole sometimes fancifully compares its subject to something else. The key difference is that hyperbole often makes claims that no reasonable person would take literally. About your quote, if the phrase is used to describe something more thoroughly, it is probably a simile, even if it compares two unlike things. Again this shows how much you do not master the different figures of speech since with your very example you were unable to provide any pure hyperbole.
About my "broken English" I am not the one unable to spell English words correctly. So again insulting a non native speaker whereas you are yourself unable to provide a perfect English is the height of hypocrisy and the ultimate ridiculousness...
In French we have a saying for this "L'injure est l'argument du faible, c'est l'aveu de reddition." (more or less in my "Broken English" but I guess you will get it : "Insult is the argument of the weakest one, the confession of surrender").
And the very example of ignorance Pulsey: literary devices are also taught in French, actually most of the modern figures of speech (in French "Figures de style") you can encounter, were patterned from French scholars of the Renaissance (see La Pléiade) and revived it from Classical Latin and Greek works on Rhetorical figures. So no need to know English to have a sufficient knowledge on these figures of speech, in France these rhetorical figures are also taught (perhaps even more thoroughly) and this is also the case in other non English speaking countries.

How so? If you believe in some 'racist' views, how doesn't that make you a racist? If you commit a small crime, doesn't it make you a criminal? A petty thief is a criminal, as is a mass murderer. One is of course worse than the other, but if you are talking about a blanket term here, than it is absolute.

Someone believing in some racist views is racist, this wasn't the question, but he is nonetheless less racist than someone having more racist views, this is pure logic. About your example of crime, there are petty criminals (such as poachers and smugglers) and high profile criminal cases such as large scale banditry, serial killers or terrorists. Again your own attempt to illustrate your argument with an example (here criminal) miserably failed.

Its funny, because on the first page I was accusing 'Juq' and liberals like you of changing the definition of racism to satisfy their own political agenda.

The one changing it is you, again another example of your one-sided views, and if someone is against it, this person is without question wrong, I come with a new term for your very weird form of logic : "Pulseyesque Logic".

This is correct, and for the third time in a row, you have yet to bring any of these so called 'racist statements' on the table.

Very sad arguing with you, always the same.

And I will recall it to you again: we discussed about his racist statements in many other threads (Mexican hateful speech, the Muslim ban, etc.) and as you are clearly the most stubborn person I ever met in this forum (do not take it as a compliment), you will always neglect it and you won't listen to reason because you cannot conceive something opposing your views would be true. This is why I said earlier you were an obvious hopeless case.

I'll start with the petty things...

Insult is the argument of the weakest one, the confession of surrender".

Is this why you have been calling me ' hypocrite, stubborn, illiterate and a hopeless case with a little ego'?

Btw, "illterate" is usually spelled I-L-L-I-T-E-R-A-T-E. For a native speaker I would start to worry about your own grammar mistakes.

It's a spelling mistake, not a grammar mistake. I spelt it correctly in the first paragraph, but of course you conveniently ignore that. It was a typo. I am not a native speaker of English, you knew this very well, but of course you conveniently chose to forget that too.

The key difference is that hyperbole often makes claims that no reasonable person would take literally

The temperature of the Sun reaches up to 15 million Celsius.
Is the weather today as hot as the Sun then? You are stepping on your own toes.

I am not the one unable to spell English words correctly.

So you've never made a single typo on this forum? Please...

About those "racist statements" we had time to debate about it in many other threads, like the ones about the Muslim ban or the Mexican hateful speech

And which I already told you, we debunked in this thread. Juq admitted it wasn't a racist statement on the first page, see for yourself. As for the Muslim ban, have you got an explanation on which part is racist? I'm not sure which quote you are referring to, you just say something vague and expect me to produce a counterargument. Then when I do you accuse me of derailing the topic, expecting me to read your mind (which is remarkably closed!)

Boohoo, poor Pulsey not my fault if you are really unable to read an entire paragraph. I gave you an answer you chose to ignore, I told you some politicians purposely choose to neglect their ideals and state things

The question was what has Trump said with racist overtones, the answer you gave me was some waffle that politicians often change their rhetoric to fit their voting bloc, which is true but has nothing to do with the question.

Someone believing in some racist views is racist, this wasn't the question, but he is nonetheless less racist than someone having more racist views, this is pure logic.

And I've already said no, racist is an absolute description, but never mind, these are semantics...

About your example of crime, there are petty criminals (such as poachers and smugglers) and high profile criminal cases such as large scale Mexican banditry, serial killers or terrorists.

That is very true. Are there petty racists and high profile racists then?

You still haven't given any exact quote with any actual explanation on how Trump has produced a 'racist statement'. Saying vague things like Mexican hateful speech, the Muslim ban, etc) isn't going to get you out of this!

Like I said, arguing you is rarely arguing about the topic on hand, we have to get past all sorts of petty topics, accusations of 'truncation' or 'deraling your thread' and then personal attacks from you

For the 4th time, actual quote and explanation please!

Edited 4/10/2016 16:01:25