In this situation you are probably right. However, it's very problematic as a general statement. There are too many atrocities committed by violent majorities against powerless minorities that come to mind. This blanket statement gets into victim shaming really quick.
Agreed. Atrocities have happened and will most likely happen again with innocent victims.
But even with violent majorities there is usually a justification of the behavior that somehow involves something the minority party is doing (or not doing) that justifies the action. Not that this makes it any more morally palatable (or true) from an objective viewpoint but the division may exist to be seized upon.
I'd also argue that Trump isn't the cause of division so much as the result of existing divisions some of which are quite old and have been festering.
My last point is I really grow weary of hearing Trump slams. We get it. You don't like Trump. But some people do. Is there any way we could keep this repetitive bleating on Facebook or something? No offense to poster lastlogin. His comment history seems pretty solid, I'm just sick of the Trump slams every third forum.
My remark was not about Trump. That's why I started out saying that the parent is probably right in this particular case. My concern was with the statement being applied as a general statement. Had the parent made a statement exclusively about Trump I would have been totally fine with it.
It's somewhat concerning that there political situation has reached a point where many statements are assumed to be about Trump.
I was probably treading over the line into HN no go territory, which isn't right. However I really do think that ignoring the elephant on the room isn't helpful either. How do you balance these two factors? Likely by keeping threads on topic would by my thought...
As much as I despise Trump, I agree. I'd prefer HN remain relatively non-political. The minute it starts to resemble anything like the default front page of reddit, I'm going to be looking for the next HN.
You know he's been a public loudmouth for ~30 years, right? Consider the encyclopedic familiarity with his massive corpus of blabbering you claim when you make a flat statement like this.
I could point out a bunch of his statements and attitudes, none of which would be news to you. The issue is: You haven't recognized those statements for what they are. They apply to classes of Other, so you haven't recognized them as being applicable to full-fledged equals, to human citizens.
When the president says something like "you have to treat [women] like shit" or when he claims that women are untrustworthy because they're all gold-digging bimbos, he's dissing half the nation as fundamentally deplorable.
When the president says things like "laziness is a trait in blacks," he's dissing ~40 million Americans - virtually all of whom are natural citizens, and who are consistently over-represented in the armed forces - as fundamentally less valuable as human beings.
The fact that he's also being a sexist/racist asshole at the same time shouldn't let him off the hook for statements like these. The fact that you haven't already recognized these attitudes (and many others like them) as fundamentally anti-patriotic attacks on your fellow citizens - that's on you.
Wtf are you talking about? This has never happened.