Comment on Trump advisor LOSES HIS MIND when confronted by foreign journalist

• Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  You’ve edited the first comment I replied to so I cannot quote you.

  Also, I’m sorry, the “best possible light” interpretation of “she became black” is that it isn’t racist. It’s racist. Not considering it racist is pretty fucking disgusting.

  This is an ad hominem though, as you’re attacking the arguer’s morals instead of employing a proper argument.

  As for the example “she became black”, in the context it was uttered Trump is arguing in his frenetic junk speech, that Kamala was using her mixed race to her advantage and gave examples where she appealed to her Indian and Black heritage distinctly due to the context in an attempt to manipulate that core audience. He makes no value judgments on those races or uses it to belittle them (as far as I can recall), which detracts from the racism accusation (although, obviously he is but I can’t be bothered to dredge up all that BS). He is simply saying: “she’s blatantly pandering”. An argument that I begrudgingly agree with (I hate that I do trust me). That said, while his argument is sound, I am unconvinced because I don’t blame her for pandering to people that share her heritage. If I could I would be too in her shoes, and frankly the obvious counter of “Trump also panders to those that share his heritage (white incels)” is unnecessary but implied in her rolling of eyes / mocking facial expressions.

  source

  • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Nonsense. He’s a racist. He has a very, very long history of racism.

    source

    • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      (although, obviously he is but I can’t be bothered to dredge up all that BS)

      I clearly agree with you. The point is that his argument “Kamala is abusing her mixed heritage to pander to those audiences” is the best way to interpret the argument to come to rational conclusions.

      In my counter-argument I simply state the premises: The candidates job is to win (implied), both candidates are pandering to their heritage, and accusations of pandering are an unpersuasive form criticism as it is expected from rational voters. Therefore, I do not find his complaint that her pandering is unfair, abusive or even remotely persuasive to vote for him instead.

      If you want to pile on a rhetorical argument that he is racist and shouldn’t be voted for you’d be preaching to the choir, but as you can see accusing your arguer of being racist is both irrelevant and counter-productive to coming to the same conclusion in the end.

      source

      • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        No it isn’t. The best way to interpret that argument to come to the rational conclusion is to interpret is AS RACIST.

        Jesus Christ you are bending over backward to not make an obviously racist comment, which he has since repeated after being called out on the racism, is not racist. He literally did it at the debate. There is nothing irrelevant or counter-productive about saying what is true.

        And if you agree that he is a racist, I have no idea why you are being so charitable to the extremely racist thing he keeps repeating.

        source

        • -> View More Comments