ALoafOfBread

The implication is pretty clearly "the immigrants are coming to take your jobs, black people". Especially when said to a room full of black people. Especially given that that has been standard republican messaging for well over 50 years for all ethnic groups.

That is still racist. It is still manipulative. It is still scummy and bad. It just is pretty clearly not logically equivalent to "immigrants are coming to take the jobs segregated for black people".

And obviously state of residence is not equivalent to race. It is an example. It is the same logical form of argument. They've done the same thing (about race, specifically) to rural white folks since literally the trans-continental railroad, but then about Chinese immigrants mostly. In modern times, the meaning has never been "only x race can have y job". It has always been about the threat of the outsider (immigrant) "stealing" jobs from non-immigrants as a way of causing an us-vs-them dynamic. That is still a racist dynamic. But it is not the same as saying only x race can have y job.

Dude. You are way overreacting and misinterpreting what I've said.

Saying "thing that trump said means this racist thing and not that one" is in no way equivalent to anything you've accused me of.

I've read theory. Kropotkin. Marx (not just manifesto, but kapital and other serious works). I've read nearly every book Chomsky has ever written. It is important to understand the nuances of propaganda. When we misinterpret something trump says intentionally to score political points, which I believe we are doing in this case (and which Republicans do all the time), there are pros and cons to that.

Pros: it can encourage people to vote, gets attention, energizes people

Cons: it misleads people by ignoring context and the other systemic issues at play here: namely focusing on this invented idea that there are "black jobs" instead of the idea that politicians play racial groups off each other all the time and have throughout american and european history by blaming immigrants for economic issues like unemployment.

None of that is pro fascist. I'm calling the orange fascist a racist. This site is largely left-leaning. These comments are aimed at my fellow leftists to encourage us to think critically about the political messaging Dems are putting out because it can be instructive to leftist causes.

I'm encouraging a critical, realpolitik understanding of the messaging around this case AND acknowledging that the orange fascist is indeed racist and that this sort of (in my opinion) bad-faith messaging can be beneficial in the short term but can be distracting and potentially harmful in the long run. People are quick to see criticism of the side they identify with as supporting the other side - that is not what's happening here. If you look at what I've said in good faith, I believe you'll see my point even if you disagree. I've laid it out pretty clearly, imo.

That just isn't the case. Like, sure, it is a possible implication. But it is not the most likely one given the context. There are other implications to draw, like the ones I've given examples of, which are more likely given the context.

The fact that people can't understand my point and are mass downvoting is what I'm talking about. I'll sperg out on this despite the disagreement because I'm interested in rhetoric and political messaging.

Read my responses. It is not botd. Trump is obviously a racist POS. But being a racist POS doesn't mean each thing he says means all racist things. Things have specific meanings. My whole point is that people aren't thinking critically about how the messaging and the actual content of the speech differ.

Oh for sure. I only meant in the US where MIT is located. But it's already a useful breakthrough for everyone in civilized countries

Amazing how anything left of stormfront is "left" something

Now make mammograms not $500 and not have a 6 month waiting time and make them available for women under 40. Then this'll be a useful breakthrough

The primary difference being that the Dems are backing up the name calling with actual policies or things they've done.

Trump is weird bc he constantly says off the wall things, does weird shit, and supports unpopular policies (which are weird).

Vance is creepy because he believes and says super weird shit about women. Like how he believes women have to have kids to have value - that is creepy. If somebody said that on a date, there would not be another date. And how he nevertheless has no problem with childless couches - pretty hypocritical and creepy.

And from the repub side:

Schumer is a "member of Hamas" because.... it is inflamatory

Kamala is "laughing kamala" because.... she laughs sometimes. She is also a "radical democrat socialist" because.... she supports mainstream, popular, dem policies