Trump supporters: Tell me why the President *isn’t* super-racist.

[DavidB.]

F-ck, your country is going down in flames. What a sorry state of things, judging by the values of people like Sanchez and Fuzzy. #thoughtsandprayers

I liked you better when you were in the closet.

I liked you better when you weren’t constantly a giant f-ckhole just because you can be, but, alas, it wasn’t meant to be. Maybe one day you will come out of the closet too.

I'm guessing Gays for Trump is still a lot more fun than whichever SJW cult you're a member of.

[Xing]

I get that honest conversations about racism are virtually impossible these days, but wow... this thread was a *fun* read. I think this thread was doomed from the start though, since I really don't think Democrats are convincing anyone to join their side with accusations of racism, or trying to catch people in the act of racism. Now, I do personally think that Trump is racist. What I'm saying is that trying to prove that he is isn't going to turn people who support him away from him. Either they're convinced that he isn't, and nothing is going to change their mind, or they don't care (as Santander pointed out.)

This is a bone I have to pick with the "pro-diversity/multiculturalism" ideology of the Democratic Party. I'm saying that as a left-winger who likes diversity and thinks multiculturalism is not only a wonderful thing, but necessary in the world of today. Unfortunately, I think too many liberals only promote being "multi-cultural" or "anti-racist" for the sake of their image, claiming moral superiority, and enjoy chewing people out as racists. Calling someone out as a racist is hardly ever helpful, even if it's accurate.

Democrats have to do a better job of selling multiculturalism (often through the form of immigration) as something positive, and not coming across as wanting to label everyone as a racist. It's going to be tough, because accepting other cultures and understanding people with very different backgrounds is most often not easy. Speaking as someone who's lived in another country before, coming into direct contact with other cultures can be very uncomfortable at times, even if you think you're the most forward-thinking progressive on the planet. I think we need to understand that a lot of Americans are not immediately going to be in love with the idea of a multicultural America, and instead of denouncing anyone uncomfortable with that idea as a racist, we need to sell the idea to them, and understand their hesitation to get behind it.

Some Democrats want to reach out to Americans who have been turned off by the left recently, others want to double down on being pro-immigration and multicultural. I want to do both.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

I get that honest conversations about racism are virtually impossible these days, but wow... this thread was a *fun* read. I think this thread was doomed from the start though, since I really don't think Democrats are convincing anyone to join their side with accusations of racism, or trying to catch people in the act of racism. Now, I do personally think that Trump is racist. What I'm saying is that trying to prove that he is isn't going to turn people who support him away from him. Either they're convinced that he isn't, and nothing is going to change their mind, or they don't care (as Santander pointed out.)

This is a bone I have to pick with the "pro-diversity/multiculturalism" ideology of the Democratic Party. I'm saying that as a left-winger who likes diversity and thinks multiculturalism is not only a wonderful thing, but necessary in the world of today. Unfortunately, I think too many liberals only promote being "multi-cultural" or "anti-racist" for the sake of their image, claiming moral superiority, and enjoy chewing people out as racists. Calling someone out as a racist is hardly ever helpful, even if it's accurate.

Democrats have to do a better job of selling multiculturalism (often through the form of immigration) as something positive, and not coming across as wanting to label everyone as a racist. It's going to be tough, because accepting other cultures and understanding people with very different backgrounds is most often not easy. Speaking as someone who's lived in another country before, coming into direct contact with other cultures can be very uncomfortable at times, even if you think you're the most forward-thinking progressive on the planet. I think we need to understand that a lot of Americans are not immediately going to be in love with the idea of a multicultural America, and instead of denouncing anyone uncomfortable with that idea as a racist, we need to sell the idea to them, and understand their hesitation to get behind it.

Some Democrats want to reach out to Americans who have been turned off by the left recently, others want to double down on being pro-immigration and multicultural. I want to do both.

One of the best posts in Atlas history.  Seriously.

If this sentiment could get through to the Democratic Party, they just might have a trifecta in 2020. 

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

F-ck, your country is going down in flames. What a sorry state of things, judging by the values of people like Sanchez and Fuzzy. #thoughtsandprayers

I liked you better when you were in the closet.

I liked you better when you weren’t constantly a giant f-ckhole just because you can be, but, alas, it wasn’t meant to be. Maybe one day you will come out of the closet too.

I'm guessing Gays for Trump is still a lot more fun than whichever SJW cult you're a member of.

I love how Hagrid's reaction is "lol you're a fag." That's rich!

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

F-ck, your country is going down in flames. What a sorry state of things, judging by the values of people like Sanchez and Fuzzy. #thoughtsandprayers

I liked you better when you were in the closet.

I liked you better when you weren’t constantly a giant f-ckhole just because you can be, but, alas, it wasn’t meant to be. Maybe one day you will come out of the closet too.

I'm guessing Gays for Trump is still a lot more fun than whichever SJW cult you're a member of.

I love how Hagrid's reaction is "lol you're a fag." That's rich!

I wonder if his deployment of multiple F-bombs isn't a "cry for help".

[Cory]

I get that honest conversations about racism are virtually impossible these days, but wow... this thread was a *fun* read. I think this thread was doomed from the start though, since I really don't think Democrats are convincing anyone to join their side with accusations of racism, or trying to catch people in the act of racism. Now, I do personally think that Trump is racist. What I'm saying is that trying to prove that he is isn't going to turn people who support him away from him. Either they're convinced that he isn't, and nothing is going to change their mind, or they don't care (as Santander pointed out.)

This is a bone I have to pick with the "pro-diversity/multiculturalism" ideology of the Democratic Party. I'm saying that as a left-winger who likes diversity and thinks multiculturalism is not only a wonderful thing, but necessary in the world of today. Unfortunately, I think too many liberals only promote being "multi-cultural" or "anti-racist" for the sake of their image, claiming moral superiority, and enjoy chewing people out as racists. Calling someone out as a racist is hardly ever helpful, even if it's accurate.

Democrats have to do a better job of selling multiculturalism (often through the form of immigration) as something positive, and not coming across as wanting to label everyone as a racist. It's going to be tough, because accepting other cultures and understanding people with very different backgrounds is most often not easy. Speaking as someone who's lived in another country before, coming into direct contact with other cultures can be very uncomfortable at times, even if you think you're the most forward-thinking progressive on the planet. I think we need to understand that a lot of Americans are not immediately going to be in love with the idea of a multicultural America, and instead of denouncing anyone uncomfortable with that idea as a racist, we need to sell the idea to them, and understand their hesitation to get behind it.

Some Democrats want to reach out to Americans who have been turned off by the left recently, others want to double down on being pro-immigration and multicultural. I want to do both.

One of the best posts in Atlas history.  Seriously.

If this sentiment could get through to the Democratic Party, they just might have a trifecta in 2020. 

[KingSweden]

I get that honest conversations about racism are virtually impossible these days, but wow... this thread was a *fun* read. I think this thread was doomed from the start though, since I really don't think Democrats are convincing anyone to join their side with accusations of racism, or trying to catch people in the act of racism. Now, I do personally think that Trump is racist. What I'm saying is that trying to prove that he is isn't going to turn people who support him away from him. Either they're convinced that he isn't, and nothing is going to change their mind, or they don't care (as Santander pointed out.)

This is a bone I have to pick with the "pro-diversity/multiculturalism" ideology of the Democratic Party. I'm saying that as a left-winger who likes diversity and thinks multiculturalism is not only a wonderful thing, but necessary in the world of today. Unfortunately, I think too many liberals only promote being "multi-cultural" or "anti-racist" for the sake of their image, claiming moral superiority, and enjoy chewing people out as racists. Calling someone out as a racist is hardly ever helpful, even if it's accurate.

Democrats have to do a better job of selling multiculturalism (often through the form of immigration) as something positive, and not coming across as wanting to label everyone as a racist. It's going to be tough, because accepting other cultures and understanding people with very different backgrounds is most often not easy. Speaking as someone who's lived in another country before, coming into direct contact with other cultures can be very uncomfortable at times, even if you think you're the most forward-thinking progressive on the planet. I think we need to understand that a lot of Americans are not immediately going to be in love with the idea of a multicultural America, and instead of denouncing anyone uncomfortable with that idea as a racist, we need to sell the idea to them, and understand their hesitation to get behind it.

Some Democrats want to reach out to Americans who have been turned off by the left recently, others want to double down on being pro-immigration and multicultural. I want to do both.

One of the best posts in Atlas history.  Seriously.

If this sentiment could get through to the Democratic Party, they just might have a trifecta in 2020. 

[Dr. Arch]

I get that honest conversations about racism are virtually impossible these days, but wow... this thread was a *fun* read. I think this thread was doomed from the start though, since I really don't think Democrats are convincing anyone to join their side with accusations of racism, or trying to catch people in the act of racism. Now, I do personally think that Trump is racist. What I'm saying is that trying to prove that he is isn't going to turn people who support him away from him. Either they're convinced that he isn't, and nothing is going to change their mind, or they don't care (as Santander pointed out.)

This is a bone I have to pick with the "pro-diversity/multiculturalism" ideology of the Democratic Party. I'm saying that as a left-winger who likes diversity and thinks multiculturalism is not only a wonderful thing, but necessary in the world of today. Unfortunately, I think too many liberals only promote being "multi-cultural" or "anti-racist" for the sake of their image, claiming moral superiority, and enjoy chewing people out as racists. Calling someone out as a racist is hardly ever helpful, even if it's accurate.

Democrats have to do a better job of selling multiculturalism (often through the form of immigration) as something positive, and not coming across as wanting to label everyone as a racist. It's going to be tough, because accepting other cultures and understanding people with very different backgrounds is most often not easy. Speaking as someone who's lived in another country before, coming into direct contact with other cultures can be very uncomfortable at times, even if you think you're the most forward-thinking progressive on the planet. I think we need to understand that a lot of Americans are not immediately going to be in love with the idea of a multicultural America, and instead of denouncing anyone uncomfortable with that idea as a racist, we need to sell the idea to them, and understand their hesitation to get behind it.

Some Democrats want to reach out to Americans who have been turned off by the left recently, others want to double down on being pro-immigration and multicultural. I want to do both.

One of the best posts in Atlas history.  Seriously.

If this sentiment could get through to the Democratic Party, they just might have a trifecta in 2020. 

I believe this as well.

Yet, it's going to take a lot of introspecting and re-framing the message to get it across this way successfully, more so when Republicans will do their best to hinder that discourse. It would take one hell of an orator with the right party organization (and some failures by the opposition) for this to work.

And even then, I'm not sure how effective it'd be en masse, particularly due to the social networking bubbles that have developed over the last several years (a number of studies have been conducted on this). I believe that the only healthy future for this country's culture is going in this direction.

[DavidB.]

I appreciate the sentiment behind xing's post, but ultimately it boils down to the idea that "our policies are good, we just need to explain/sell them better." A substantial number of people would disagree with that, because they dislike the toxic combination of mass immigration, political correctness and affirmative action-types of policy, which arguably work as a triple whammy to put European Americans at a disadvantage. The Democrats' approach is going to continue putting off many people, especially so now that we see that the aforementioned movement is spiralling out of control and hatred of people of European origin is becoming commonplace and accepted.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

I get that honest conversations about racism are virtually impossible these days, but wow... this thread was a *fun* read. I think this thread was doomed from the start though, since I really don't think Democrats are convincing anyone to join their side with accusations of racism, or trying to catch people in the act of racism. Now, I do personally think that Trump is racist. What I'm saying is that trying to prove that he is isn't going to turn people who support him away from him. Either they're convinced that he isn't, and nothing is going to change their mind, or they don't care (as Santander pointed out.)

This is a bone I have to pick with the "pro-diversity/multiculturalism" ideology of the Democratic Party. I'm saying that as a left-winger who likes diversity and thinks multiculturalism is not only a wonderful thing, but necessary in the world of today. Unfortunately, I think too many liberals only promote being "multi-cultural" or "anti-racist" for the sake of their image, claiming moral superiority, and enjoy chewing people out as racists. Calling someone out as a racist is hardly ever helpful, even if it's accurate.

Democrats have to do a better job of selling multiculturalism (often through the form of immigration) as something positive, and not coming across as wanting to label everyone as a racist. It's going to be tough, because accepting other cultures and understanding people with very different backgrounds is most often not easy. Speaking as someone who's lived in another country before, coming into direct contact with other cultures can be very uncomfortable at times, even if you think you're the most forward-thinking progressive on the planet. I think we need to understand that a lot of Americans are not immediately going to be in love with the idea of a multicultural America, and instead of denouncing anyone uncomfortable with that idea as a racist, we need to sell the idea to them, and understand their hesitation to get behind it.

Some Democrats want to reach out to Americans who have been turned off by the left recently, others want to double down on being pro-immigration and multicultural. I want to do both.

One of the best posts in Atlas history.  Seriously.

If this sentiment could get through to the Democratic Party, they just might have a trifecta in 2020. 

No offense, Fuzzy, but I have a really hard time believing that you (and many others on this board) will accept any argument in favor of multiculturalism. And I don't mean that as a way of saying you are a racist. I just think that 1) any argument in favor of multiculturalism is going to activate identities (both political and racial) that will make certain people much less receptive and 2) I don't think multiculturalism is as compatible with your value system as its opposite.

So, as thoughtful as that post is, I don't fully agree with it. It seems to suggest that people can be persuaded that multiculturalism is good, but the right argument hasn't been found yet. I don't think there is a right argument for many, many people in this country.

[Xing]

I'm not saying that literally everyone can be convinced, simply that many people who might be written off as racists might be more willing to hear out the left if they changed their tone. Some of the damage may already be done, but I'm not buying the idea that a high percentage of Americans will be anti-immigrant/against multiculturalism no matter what. I don't think FuzzyBear's response was disingenuous. Saying that many like him are completely incapable of accepting any form of multiculturalism seems to be going a bit far to me, but I suppose I'll let him speak for himself.

To respond to David's post, I'd say that my post was more about attitude than policy, and I'm not saying that the Democratic policies are flawless. I'm definitely not pro-PC, and I have mixed feelings about affirmative action. While the concern about the job opportunities that exist for citizens (if immigration increases) is legitimate, I think the solution is job creation rather than turning more people away at the border. Democrats are right to call BS on Trump's promise to "bring jobs back", but they need to come up with a clear solution for creating new jobs for people in places like Michigan, Ohio, and West Virginia. Jobs related to clean energy can be part of that solution, but it has to be more than a talking point meant to placate these voters. I'm not trying to argue that multiculturalism is "correct", and anyone who doesn't like it is just wrong, I'm saying that the way in which liberals have talked about it has put off a lot of people who might not be as opposed to the underlying idea as they come across. And I think even the people who have strong concerns about it are not necessarily "racists", and deserve to be heard.

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

I get that honest conversations about racism are virtually impossible these days, but wow... this thread was a *fun* read. I think this thread was doomed from the start though, since I really don't think Democrats are convincing anyone to join their side with accusations of racism, or trying to catch people in the act of racism. Now, I do personally think that Trump is racist. What I'm saying is that trying to prove that he is isn't going to turn people who support him away from him. Either they're convinced that he isn't, and nothing is going to change their mind, or they don't care (as Santander pointed out.)

This is a bone I have to pick with the "pro-diversity/multiculturalism" ideology of the Democratic Party. I'm saying that as a left-winger who likes diversity and thinks multiculturalism is not only a wonderful thing, but necessary in the world of today. Unfortunately, I think too many liberals only promote being "multi-cultural" or "anti-racist" for the sake of their image, claiming moral superiority, and enjoy chewing people out as racists. Calling someone out as a racist is hardly ever helpful, even if it's accurate.

Democrats have to do a better job of selling multiculturalism (often through the form of immigration) as something positive, and not coming across as wanting to label everyone as a racist. It's going to be tough, because accepting other cultures and understanding people with very different backgrounds is most often not easy. Speaking as someone who's lived in another country before, coming into direct contact with other cultures can be very uncomfortable at times, even if you think you're the most forward-thinking progressive on the planet. I think we need to understand that a lot of Americans are not immediately going to be in love with the idea of a multicultural America, and instead of denouncing anyone uncomfortable with that idea as a racist, we need to sell the idea to them, and understand their hesitation to get behind it.

Some Democrats want to reach out to Americans who have been turned off by the left recently, others want to double down on being pro-immigration and multicultural. I want to do both.

One of the best posts in Atlas history.  Seriously.

If this sentiment could get through to the Democratic Party, they just might have a trifecta in 2020. 

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

I appreciate the sentiment behind xing's post, but ultimately it boils down to the idea that "our policies are good, we just need to explain/sell them better." A substantial number of people would disagree with that, because they dislike the toxic combination of mass immigration, political correctness and affirmative action-types of policy, which arguably work as a triple whammy to put European Americans at a disadvantage. The Democrats' approach is going to continue putting off many people, especially so now that we see that the aforementioned movement is spiralling out of control and hatred of people of European origin is becoming commonplace and accepted.

How would you propose we deal with the repercussions of political correctness, both in the US and in the Netherlands? Of the three issues you mentioned I think this will be the easiest to find common ground on and the  most necessary to change.

I'm not saying that literally everyone can be convinced, simply that many people who might be written off as racists might be more willing to hear out the left if they changed their tone. Some of the damage may already be done, but I'm not buying the idea that a high percentage of Americans will be anti-immigrant/against multiculturalism no matter what. I don't think FuzzyBear's response was disingenuous. Saying that many like him are completely incapable of accepting any form of multiculturalism seems to be going a bit far to me, but I suppose I'll let him speak for himself.

To respond to David's post, I'd say that my post was more about attitude than policy, and I'm not saying that the Democratic policies are flawless. I'm definitely not pro-PC, and I have mixed feelings about affirmative action. While the concern about the job opportunities that exist for citizens (if immigration increases) is legitimate, I think the solution is job creation rather than turning more people away at the border. Democrats are right to call BS on Trump's promise to "bring jobs back", but they need to come up with a clear solution for creating new jobs for people in places like Michigan, Ohio, and West Virginia. Jobs related to clean energy can be part of that solution, but it has to be more than a talking point meant to placate these voters. I'm not trying to argue that multiculturalism is "correct", and anyone who doesn't like it is just wrong, I'm saying that the way in which liberals have talked about it has put off a lot of people who might not be as opposed to the underlying idea as they come across. And I think even the people who have strong concerns about it are not necessarily "racists", and deserve to be heard.

I am a religiously unaffiliated social and cultural liberal and I think Fuzzy Bear made an excellent point here. Evangelical Protestants are more diverse than many people realize.

There have been bad actors in Christianity, but the anti-Christian bigotry is aimed at normal, everyday Evangelical Christians who don't share the world view of many folks here, but who work hard, are honest, and do more for the less fortunate than they get credit for in many circles.  The depiction of ordinary Christians as Roy Moores and Elmer Gantrys is no less bigoted then stereotypical versions of blacks attributed to blacks as a whole.  And lots of liberal minded people are OK with this.  Even people who say they are "Christians" have expressed being OK with this.  I'm willing to recognize a brother as a brother, even if my brother may be in Scriptural error, but I will note that this seems to be a one way street.

[junior chįmp]

I dont think Trump or his supporters are racists. As a matter of fact, I went to a Trump rally once and they burned a giant T which I think stood for TRUMP

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

I'm not saying that literally everyone can be convinced, simply that many people who might be written off as racists might be more willing to hear out the left if they changed their tone. Some of the damage may already be done, but I'm not buying the idea that a high percentage of Americans will be anti-immigrant/against multiculturalism no matter what. I don't think FuzzyBear's response was disingenuous. Saying that many like him are completely incapable of accepting any form of multiculturalism seems to be going a bit far to me, but I suppose I'll let him speak for himself.

To respond to David's post, I'd say that my post was more about attitude than policy, and I'm not saying that the Democratic policies are flawless. I'm definitely not pro-PC, and I have mixed feelings about affirmative action. While the concern about the job opportunities that exist for citizens (if immigration increases) is legitimate, I think the solution is job creation rather than turning more people away at the border. Democrats are right to call BS on Trump's promise to "bring jobs back", but they need to come up with a clear solution for creating new jobs for people in places like Michigan, Ohio, and West Virginia. Jobs related to clean energy can be part of that solution, but it has to be more than a talking point meant to placate these voters. I'm not trying to argue that multiculturalism is "correct", and anyone who doesn't like it is just wrong, I'm saying that the way in which liberals have talked about it has put off a lot of people who might not be as opposed to the underlying idea as they come across. And I think even the people who have strong concerns about it are not necessarily "racists", and deserve to be heard.

I wasn't saying that Fuzzy (or other posters) were being disingenuous. I think, rather, that they're in denial about what arguments they are and are not willing to accept. My point was that if one accepts the premise of your post, it's essentially cover, shifting the blame from people who accept racist ideas to people who don't accept racist ideas because either they aren't making their arguments well enough or because they're being "smug" and "condescending".

I will agree that you're totally right that the way that some people adopt an air of superiority about the issue is not constructive. But, no matter how many times the fact that immigrants broaden tax revenue bases, don't disproportionately commit crimes, and don't withdraw disproportionately from safety net programs gets brought up, you see blatant mistruths about all of those issues (and others) being parroted by posters over and over again. These aren't arguments; they are cold facts. And yet somehow it's my fault for not making good enough arguments when those on the other side aren't willing to accept facts?

[Dr. Arch]

I'm not saying that literally everyone can be convinced, simply that many people who might be written off as racists might be more willing to hear out the left if they changed their tone. Some of the damage may already be done, but I'm not buying the idea that a high percentage of Americans will be anti-immigrant/against multiculturalism no matter what. I don't think FuzzyBear's response was disingenuous. Saying that many like him are completely incapable of accepting any form of multiculturalism seems to be going a bit far to me, but I suppose I'll let him speak for himself.

To respond to David's post, I'd say that my post was more about attitude than policy, and I'm not saying that the Democratic policies are flawless. I'm definitely not pro-PC, and I have mixed feelings about affirmative action. While the concern about the job opportunities that exist for citizens (if immigration increases) is legitimate, I think the solution is job creation rather than turning more people away at the border. Democrats are right to call BS on Trump's promise to "bring jobs back", but they need to come up with a clear solution for creating new jobs for people in places like Michigan, Ohio, and West Virginia. Jobs related to clean energy can be part of that solution, but it has to be more than a talking point meant to placate these voters. I'm not trying to argue that multiculturalism is "correct", and anyone who doesn't like it is just wrong, I'm saying that the way in which liberals have talked about it has put off a lot of people who might not be as opposed to the underlying idea as they come across. And I think even the people who have strong concerns about it are not necessarily "racists", and deserve to be heard.

I wasn't saying that Fuzzy (or other posters) were being disingenuous. I think, rather, that they're in denial about what arguments they are and are not willing to accept. My point was that if one accepts the premise of your post, it's essentially cover, shifting the blame from people who accept racist ideas to people who don't accept racist ideas because either they aren't making their arguments well enough or because they're being "smug" and "condescending".

I will agree that you're totally right that the way that some people adopt an air of superiority about the issue is not constructive. But, no matter how many times the fact that immigrants broaden tax revenue bases, don't disproportionately commit crimes, and don't withdraw disproportionately from safety net programs gets brought up, you see blatant mistruths about all of those issues (and others) being parroted by posters over and over again. These aren't arguments; they are cold facts. And yet somehow it's my fault for not making good enough arguments when those on the other side aren't willing to accept facts?

That's why there's no way to move forward in most political conversations today. We can't even agree on what's objectively happening.

[Grassroots]

With a title like this and 5 pages of posts, I came in here knowing it was going to be a train wreck - and boy did it deliver.

All I’ll say is that I read all the exchanges between the folks here with Sanchez, Sanchez’s older posts about Parkland, and, honestly, I have to side with Sanchez. He wasn’t saying those students in any way deserved this; I think folks like Arch (who I like) read into what he said what they interpreted him as saying, rather than what was actually being said. Sanchez did engage in a bit of victim blaming, but not in an entirely unjustified way. Yes, the victims of the shooter were the ultimate victims; a gun was involved and they very likely wouldn’t have died, at least not in such numbers, without a gun being used; but, also, bullying is a factor here. Those students had been bullying the shooter for god knows how long prior to that event; they were throwing fuel on an unstable fire. If he didn’t have easy access to guns, but did have easy access to mental healthcare, then we likely wouldn’t be discussing this. But, bullying does play a role here and it’s a factor those Parkland students, their parents, and others like them tend to avoid, because that would implicate those who experienced a severe trauma. But, bullying can be traumatic as well for kids, so there does need to be a bit of understanding for the shooter as well, which is what I think Sanchez was trying to articulate (but I’ll let him speak for himself).

This wasn't bullying. This kid was ostracized because he was a violent person who made everyone uncomfortable and a massive racist.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/nikolas-cruz-shooting-florida.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/02/14/us/nikolas-cruz-florida-shooting-suspect/index.html
Bullying doesn't cause mass shootings. If that was true then shooters would be disproportionately fat and/or lgbtq+.

Nobody bullies people with gender dysphoria, schools literally hang tens of posters in the hallways talking about acceptance and blah blah.

The most bullied person in your typical school is a white boy with social awkwardness, autism, etc.

[Bidenworth2020]

Hillary voters: tell me why you're *not* a horrible waste of air.

When did you turn into such a nasty, low-effort poster? It's like having a less-clever knock-off of publicunofficial.

I don't engage the other side in serious debate anymore because they simply do not approach the issues with any sense or pretense of intellectual honesty.

You can point out a thread is dumb (and this thread is dumb) in a less childish way, though.

Why? You guys cheered the baseball shooter, regularly dismiss assaults on Trump supporters, call out everyone as fascist while using brownshirt tactics on the streets, and generally exaggerate every possible "scandal" to get past the fact that Hillary lost to him. I don't owe you any civility or pleasantries. I'm amazed that you all can dish helping after helping of chickensh-t salad but refuse to eat any yourselves.

Woah, stop the strawman. Dear god, none of us were "cheering on" the shooting of a man. Sure, you don't "owe us" any civility, so you can crawl back into your snowflake corner if you can't handle the platform. BTW, it isn't helpful when people clutch their pearls and refuse to respond, as you are only contributing to the behavior. As for the op, there is a relevant discussion to be had on this, but the default position is not he is rascist.

[fhtagn]

There really isn't a relevant discussion to be had on this, PR knew exactly what he was doing when he made this thread and worded the subject as he did.  

[Cassandra]

With a title like this and 5 pages of posts, I came in here knowing it was going to be a train wreck - and boy did it deliver.

All I’ll say is that I read all the exchanges between the folks here with Sanchez, Sanchez’s older posts about Parkland, and, honestly, I have to side with Sanchez. He wasn’t saying those students in any way deserved this; I think folks like Arch (who I like) read into what he said what they interpreted him as saying, rather than what was actually being said. Sanchez did engage in a bit of victim blaming, but not in an entirely unjustified way. Yes, the victims of the shooter were the ultimate victims; a gun was involved and they very likely wouldn’t have died, at least not in such numbers, without a gun being used; but, also, bullying is a factor here. Those students had been bullying the shooter for god knows how long prior to that event; they were throwing fuel on an unstable fire. If he didn’t have easy access to guns, but did have easy access to mental healthcare, then we likely wouldn’t be discussing this. But, bullying does play a role here and it’s a factor those Parkland students, their parents, and others like them tend to avoid, because that would implicate those who experienced a severe trauma. But, bullying can be traumatic as well for kids, so there does need to be a bit of understanding for the shooter as well, which is what I think Sanchez was trying to articulate (but I’ll let him speak for himself).

This wasn't bullying. This kid was ostracized because he was a violent person who made everyone uncomfortable and a massive racist.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/nikolas-cruz-shooting-florida.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/02/14/us/nikolas-cruz-florida-shooting-suspect/index.html
Bullying doesn't cause mass shootings. If that was true then shooters would be disproportionately fat and/or lgbtq+.

Nobody bullies people with gender dysphoria, schools literally hang tens of posters in the hallways talking about acceptance and blah blah.

The most bullied person in your typical school is a white boy with social awkwardness, autism, etc.

Really? From what I remember of middle/high school, the closeted boys got the most sh**t, regardless of race/outgoingness, etc.

[Grassroots]

With a title like this and 5 pages of posts, I came in here knowing it was going to be a train wreck - and boy did it deliver.

All I’ll say is that I read all the exchanges between the folks here with Sanchez, Sanchez’s older posts about Parkland, and, honestly, I have to side with Sanchez. He wasn’t saying those students in any way deserved this; I think folks like Arch (who I like) read into what he said what they interpreted him as saying, rather than what was actually being said. Sanchez did engage in a bit of victim blaming, but not in an entirely unjustified way. Yes, the victims of the shooter were the ultimate victims; a gun was involved and they very likely wouldn’t have died, at least not in such numbers, without a gun being used; but, also, bullying is a factor here. Those students had been bullying the shooter for god knows how long prior to that event; they were throwing fuel on an unstable fire. If he didn’t have easy access to guns, but did have easy access to mental healthcare, then we likely wouldn’t be discussing this. But, bullying does play a role here and it’s a factor those Parkland students, their parents, and others like them tend to avoid, because that would implicate those who experienced a severe trauma. But, bullying can be traumatic as well for kids, so there does need to be a bit of understanding for the shooter as well, which is what I think Sanchez was trying to articulate (but I’ll let him speak for himself).

This wasn't bullying. This kid was ostracized because he was a violent person who made everyone uncomfortable and a massive racist.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/nikolas-cruz-shooting-florida.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/02/14/us/nikolas-cruz-florida-shooting-suspect/index.html
Bullying doesn't cause mass shootings. If that was true then shooters would be disproportionately fat and/or lgbtq+.

Nobody bullies people with gender dysphoria, schools literally hang tens of posters in the hallways talking about acceptance and blah blah.

The most bullied person in your typical school is a white boy with social awkwardness, autism, etc.

Really? From what I remember of middle/high school, the closeted boys got the most sh**t, regardless of race/outgoingness, etc.

Well, maybe Utah is like that, but I just got out of High School 3 years ago and in Illinois they bombard students with stuff about acceptance, pride, *insert socially liberal phrase*, etc. Nobody ever bullies anyone based on their sexual orientation anymore, that's a big no-no even for the really dumb bullies. The most bullied are the socially awkward kids that don't hang out with anyone, say meaningless things to be funny, and don't have snapchat or instagram. They're mostly white, short, and boys. It's a real bummer, because these guys are so nice to everyone but everyone picks on them relentlessly.

[Cassandra]

With a title like this and 5 pages of posts, I came in here knowing it was going to be a train wreck - and boy did it deliver.

All I’ll say is that I read all the exchanges between the folks here with Sanchez, Sanchez’s older posts about Parkland, and, honestly, I have to side with Sanchez. He wasn’t saying those students in any way deserved this; I think folks like Arch (who I like) read into what he said what they interpreted him as saying, rather than what was actually being said. Sanchez did engage in a bit of victim blaming, but not in an entirely unjustified way. Yes, the victims of the shooter were the ultimate victims; a gun was involved and they very likely wouldn’t have died, at least not in such numbers, without a gun being used; but, also, bullying is a factor here. Those students had been bullying the shooter for god knows how long prior to that event; they were throwing fuel on an unstable fire. If he didn’t have easy access to guns, but did have easy access to mental healthcare, then we likely wouldn’t be discussing this. But, bullying does play a role here and it’s a factor those Parkland students, their parents, and others like them tend to avoid, because that would implicate those who experienced a severe trauma. But, bullying can be traumatic as well for kids, so there does need to be a bit of understanding for the shooter as well, which is what I think Sanchez was trying to articulate (but I’ll let him speak for himself).

This wasn't bullying. This kid was ostracized because he was a violent person who made everyone uncomfortable and a massive racist.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/nikolas-cruz-shooting-florida.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/02/14/us/nikolas-cruz-florida-shooting-suspect/index.html
Bullying doesn't cause mass shootings. If that was true then shooters would be disproportionately fat and/or lgbtq+.

Nobody bullies people with gender dysphoria, schools literally hang tens of posters in the hallways talking about acceptance and blah blah.

The most bullied person in your typical school is a white boy with social awkwardness, autism, etc.

Really? From what I remember of middle/high school, the closeted boys got the most sh**t, regardless of race/outgoingness, etc.

Well, maybe Utah is like that, but I just got out of High School 3 years ago and in Illinois they bombard students with stuff about acceptance, pride, *insert socially liberal phrase*, etc. Nobody ever bullies anyone based on their sexual orientation anymore, that's a big no-no even for the really dumb bullies. The most bullied are the socially awkward kids that don't hang out with anyone, say meaningless things to be funny, and don't have snapchat or instagram. They're mostly white, short, and boys. It's a real bummer, because these guys are so nice to everyone but everyone picks on them relentlessly.

I'm from Georgia for the record. Also a bit older than you, so that could be part of it. But I think the closeted boys I'm thinking of displayed a lot of the same traits you're talking about. Socially awkward, trying their best to fit in but missing the mark because they weren't being true to themselves.

I think the common denominator is both population project a certain kind of weakness that others, whose are more socially adept but insecure in their own ways, are able to recognize and pounce on in order to build themselves up.

The racial component is probably very dependent on where you're from. My high school was majority minority, so a black/hispanic kid was no less likely to be picked on then anyone else. If you're from a white majority area, I guess it makes sense that the outcasts will tend to be white.

[Rookie Yinzer]

So all these replies and no one disproved the OP? LOL.

[courts]

With a title like this and 5 pages of posts, I came in here knowing it was going to be a train wreck - and boy did it deliver.

All I’ll say is that I read all the exchanges between the folks here with Sanchez, Sanchez’s older posts about Parkland, and, honestly, I have to side with Sanchez. He wasn’t saying those students in any way deserved this; I think folks like Arch (who I like) read into what he said what they interpreted him as saying, rather than what was actually being said. Sanchez did engage in a bit of victim blaming, but not in an entirely unjustified way. Yes, the victims of the shooter were the ultimate victims; a gun was involved and they very likely wouldn’t have died, at least not in such numbers, without a gun being used; but, also, bullying is a factor here. Those students had been bullying the shooter for god knows how long prior to that event; they were throwing fuel on an unstable fire. If he didn’t have easy access to guns, but did have easy access to mental healthcare, then we likely wouldn’t be discussing this. But, bullying does play a role here and it’s a factor those Parkland students, their parents, and others like them tend to avoid, because that would implicate those who experienced a severe trauma. But, bullying can be traumatic as well for kids, so there does need to be a bit of understanding for the shooter as well, which is what I think Sanchez was trying to articulate (but I’ll let him speak for himself).

This wasn't bullying. This kid was ostracized because he was a violent person who made everyone uncomfortable and a massive racist.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/nikolas-cruz-shooting-florida.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/02/14/us/nikolas-cruz-florida-shooting-suspect/index.html
Bullying doesn't cause mass shootings. If that was true then shooters would be disproportionately fat and/or lgbtq+.

Nobody bullies people with gender dysphoria, schools literally hang tens of posters in the hallways talking about acceptance and blah blah.

The most bullied person in your typical school is a white boy with social awkwardness, autism, etc.

Really? From what I remember of middle/high school, the closeted boys got the most sh**t, regardless of race/outgoingness, etc.

Well, maybe Utah is like that, but I just got out of High School 3 years ago and in Illinois they bombard students with stuff about acceptance, pride, *insert socially liberal phrase*, etc. Nobody ever bullies anyone based on their sexual orientation anymore, that's a big no-no even for the really dumb bullies. The most bullied are the socially awkward kids that don't hang out with anyone, say meaningless things to be funny, and don't have snapchat or instagram. They're mostly white, short, and boys. It's a real bummer, because these guys are so nice to everyone but everyone picks on them relentlessly.

it's still depressingly common

https://qz.com/1014142/a-teen-health-survey-crucial-to-us-public-policy-is-finally-asking-kids-about-their-sexual-orientation/

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

I get that honest conversations about racism are virtually impossible these days, but wow... this thread was a *fun* read. I think this thread was doomed from the start though, since I really don't think Democrats are convincing anyone to join their side with accusations of racism, or trying to catch people in the act of racism. Now, I do personally think that Trump is racist. What I'm saying is that trying to prove that he is isn't going to turn people who support him away from him. Either they're convinced that he isn't, and nothing is going to change their mind, or they don't care (as Santander pointed out.)

This is a bone I have to pick with the "pro-diversity/multiculturalism" ideology of the Democratic Party. I'm saying that as a left-winger who likes diversity and thinks multiculturalism is not only a wonderful thing, but necessary in the world of today. Unfortunately, I think too many liberals only promote being "multi-cultural" or "anti-racist" for the sake of their image, claiming moral superiority, and enjoy chewing people out as racists. Calling someone out as a racist is hardly ever helpful, even if it's accurate.

Democrats have to do a better job of selling multiculturalism (often through the form of immigration) as something positive, and not coming across as wanting to label everyone as a racist. It's going to be tough, because accepting other cultures and understanding people with very different backgrounds is most often not easy. Speaking as someone who's lived in another country before, coming into direct contact with other cultures can be very uncomfortable at times, even if you think you're the most forward-thinking progressive on the planet. I think we need to understand that a lot of Americans are not immediately going to be in love with the idea of a multicultural America, and instead of denouncing anyone uncomfortable with that idea as a racist, we need to sell the idea to them, and understand their hesitation to get behind it.

Some Democrats want to reach out to Americans who have been turned off by the left recently, others want to double down on being pro-immigration and multicultural. I want to do both.

One of the best posts in Atlas history.  Seriously.

If this sentiment could get through to the Democratic Party, they just might have a trifecta in 2020.  

No offense, Fuzzy, but I have a really hard time believing that you (and many others on this board) will accept any argument in favor of multiculturalism. And I don't mean that as a way of saying you are a racist. I just think that 1) any argument in favor of multiculturalism is going to activate identities (both political and racial) that will make certain people much less receptive and 2) I don't think multiculturalism is as compatible with your value system as its opposite.

So, as thoughtful as that post is, I don't fully agree with it. It seems to suggest that people can be persuaded that multiculturalism is good, but the right argument hasn't been found yet. I don't think there is a right argument for many, many people in this country.

I understand what you're saying here.  The response to this would be in how one defines "multiculturalism".

If by "multiculturalism" one is speaking of "pluralism", that's one thing.  The idea of persons from diverse backgrounds contributing to a common culture, making that common culture richer and more varied, is a good thing.  I have lived most of my life in multicultural environments; Greater New York, Tampa Bay, and now the East Coast of Florida.  I don't live in the part of Florida that is the rural South, but I have lived in parts of Florida where the old and the new intersect.  This kind of multiculturalism is a good thing, in that it brings into a common culture a variety of traditions, while making an area diverse.  And while I believe that everyone emigrating to America needs to learn English, I'm not bent out of shape by the degree everyday business offers the option of dealing with Spanish-Speaking (or even Creole-Speaking) persons.  

If, however, one is speaking about multiculturalism as a concept with no common culture, that is another issue.  This strain of multiculturalism is what is in Europe, where Muslims are poorly assimilated into their nations.  The outcome has not been good over there, and such a multiculturalism over here is the sort of thing that nurtures long-term racial and ethnic resentments and keeps centuries-old grudges alive.  My reasons for despising this brand of "multiculturalism" are many, but the main reason is that its development would preclude the basis of a common culture by which our leaders can appeal to all Americans AS Americans.  We have a complicated history as a nation, but out of a complicated history came, I believe, a GREAT and a GOOD nation, and that principle is an indispensable ingredient in any American common culture that can be a basis for the national unity of a diverse people.  This type of "multiculturalism" will permanently block any kind of national consensus to move to solve even the most important issues.

I'm very much for the former.  Not the latter.