"...of literally any sort"? Strawman, much?
It would only be a straw man if it altered the point of consideration. Recognizing a greater breadth in the same point doesn't do that.
Again, I certainly agree with what you are saying, and I affirm wholeheartedly that freedom of association is an integral part of the liberal ideal (which, for the record, is why imposing anti-discrimination laws on businesses is illiberal).
There's a profound difference between choosing to associate and discrimination, which isn't about your company but about equality of opportunity within the context of the public square, not your living room or backyard barbecue.
And this isn't an abstract academic consideration. Look at how hate speech laws are being applied in Europe, and look at the "misgendering" law in California.
Europe has a different tradition and let me know when Cal. actually has a law on the books to talk about.
What you are saying is the rejection of the liberal ideal. You say "Nazi," I say "protestants," Republicans say "left wing protestors," and leftists say "transphobes." You can't pick and choose which ideas are and are not acceptable. Either all ideas can be expressed or not.
I think you can and that we do, in fact, reasonably exclude some things from the public forum. The standards applied aren't magical or mysterious and exclusions are rare and tied to fundamental societal interests.
On your note about Jews being "over represented" in a particular.
I'm not necessarily claiming that it does [signify anything other than merit]. But it is a curious fact.
Your choice of avatar doesn't lend credibility to your statement, Trad. It carries insinuation and a tradition of fairly odious associations. You're better off without it...or the asinine avatar.
On alleged evangelical racism.
At the very least, Trump voters are, and 81% of evangelicals voted for Trump.
I don't see hard data about racism, only bias and negative focus, which is a bit different. Look, I know more of America than not has some fairly sophomoric ideas, racially. I've posted studies on the point. One noting that a surprising number of whites believe crime and poverty in black communities has some genetic element. But there's a gap between holding a stupid idea and being stupid, or being willing to do something stupid. And racism without power is nothing but a bad attitude. In fact, you could argue (and many have) that racism is only meaningful when it acts. When we talk about racism we speak about what it does, who it demeans, excludes, or in some other palpable way harms.
You've fundamentally misunderstood my point. I am not claiming that, in fact, there is a problem of welfare queens who are black.
Rather, I thought you believed that was the mental response of the people you were speaking to, the religious right. And my response was essentially that it might be true (as an extension of that ethnocentric principle) but largely among the ignorant. And ignorance is curable.
What I am claiming is that the right wing anti-welfare point of view, in particular, when accompanied by complaints about "welfare queens" is itself motivated by racism, if only by unconscious bias.
I don't agree with the assessment as an expression of racism. The other will usually receive a less welcoming and warm embrace. The greater the difference the larger the distance. So when anyone thinks of a poor example of something they'll be more likely to mentally associate that negative with the other, and less likely to associate it with people who are more readily identifiable as being like them.
Racism and bias are cousins, but they haven't married and necessarily produced angry children.
lain:
Let's be clear on what I am and am not saying:
I am not saying that right wing policies are inherently racist.
I am not saying that the "philosophy" which underpins right wing views is inherently racist.
I AM saying that, in fact, people are generally motivated to hold those views based on racism and in-group preference, even if that racism is at the level of unconscious bias.
I'm not confused, but it's always a good idea to be as clear with everyone as possible. My response is that all bias does not a bigot make and that you're trying to move the margin unreasonably. I suspect that you do this not as a real criticism of the right, but to some extent to create the impression of association by which your ideas can find purchase.
If the United States were an entirely white nation, I have no doubt that there would be way fewer economic right wingers around.
What if everyone had wings?
In terms of political policies, the only "racist" view that I hold (with the possibly exception of views I hold with respect to the Jews...and my views on immigration) is that there needs to be a white ethnostate, and my reasons for so holding are fundamentally non-racist, as I'll explain later to Kmo.
So outside of Jews and creating (by peaceful magic) a state excluding everyone who isn't white you're a peach.
1. How could support for the war on drugs be based on a "principled opposition to the ceding of power to an inexhausibly power hungry federal apparatus"?
Who said every program instituted by the right was ideologically consistent? Or that the basis for every political decision could be? The war on drugs, not uniformly supported by conservatives, is a war to prevent greater social damage and corruption. It is a push back against liberalized drug enforcement attitude and policy in its current incarnation. It began as a police response to increased crime and violence associated with the trade.
2. Their economic views could be, but it's generally not. These people are generally deeply racist.
I think that would help you, if true. I don't believe you can seriously make the case that it is though. You won't hear many conservatives talking about a white state, by way of. A few peculiar people here might defend the notion of a non political/legal separation, and find nothing wrong with exclusion in personal association. Those people are probably racist, but they aren't the backbone of the conservative movement. They're the margin where that impulse has deepened into something sad, to be disguised by the notion of celebrating their own cultural roots, such as they are or are understood.
On immigration and skipping line responses.
It COULD be. But it's generally not. Where was the right wing outrage over Melania Trump's possibly working in the US without the proper documentation? Are these right wingers concerned about white or Asian illegal immigrants?
I don't see any real justification in your opinion. As to disparate treatment of those holding celebrity status, welcome to America.
Is that why they want to build a wall?
The 70% of Trump supporters who want it (I saw the figure a couple of months ago in a Washington post bit) were sold the notion that there was a dangerous problem on our southern border and right wing media pushed the worst of it onto their plates with supper during the election run. Even so and even among Trump supporters you have a sizable number who don't actually want it. Add those to the people who don't like him and you have most of America.
Because
I know why I want that wall.
And that's why you're probably in the worst position to judge the motives of others on the point.
