For those who defend Trump

[Nihil Obstat]

Does anyone have handy an article or source that has a more or less comprehensive index of reasons for considering Steve Bannon to be a racist? My very short search did not turn up anything solid, and I do not have time to dig in more depth.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

You were/are a Trump detractor, there are others on PM who were and are Trump detractors. But you're not going to see me asking loaded accusatory questions to Trump detractors.

Such as what the Phatmass Trump detractors think about the assaults on Trump defenders, the fabricated claims of attacks by Trump defenders on Trump detractors, the burning of buildings, smashing of windows, smashing of cars, the calls to assassinate Trump, the calls to rape Trump's wife, the over all violent protests against Trump (aka riots), and other acts of domestic terrorism by fringe Trump detractors.

I'm not going to do that for the same reasons I objected to being associated with neo-nazis and because I know no one here supports those things so asking would only be insulting and pointless. Just because I defended Trump and others did so on PM, doesn't mean we should have to answer for some wacko neo-nazi jackholes. No more than you and other PM Trump detractors should have to answer for the violent wacko fringe Trump detractors. It would be rude, it would be judgemental and it would be accusatory.

You've just proven my point with that passive aggressive accusation. I am not a neo-nazi and I do not answer for the actions of neo-nazis. It should be assumed that I do not support neo-nazis. You are not a rioting domestic terrorist, you do not need to answer for the actions of domestic terrorists. It should be assumed that you don't support domestic terrorists. Being for or against Trump isn't good cause to ask such loaded questions.

I voted for the ASP candidate. If there were an article about some member of the KKK supporting the ASP candidate, and someone asked for my thoughts on it, I would not jump to the conclusion that they were implying that I am a racist or a KKK supporter. I would not have reacted "how dare you even ask for my thought on the article, you should know how I would respond." I would have simply replied with something along the lines of "it is a shame that such people exist. I wonder why they support the ASP candidate." Your reaction strikes me as overly sensitive and defensive, and perhaps that is because you have serious reservations about your candidate or the choice you made. But nobody here has accused you of being a racist, either explicitly or implicitly. I think that most of the things that you think you are being accused of are in your own head.

6 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Does anyone have handy an article or source that has a more or less comprehensive index of reasons for considering Steve Bannon to be a racist? My very short search did not turn up anything solid, and I do not have time to dig in more depth.

I wonder if he is the victim of the Dem smear machine? A couple of days ago my GF (Dem) told me that Jeff Sessions was slated for AG and was racist for various reasons. But then when I looked at the actual evidence, I couldn't see much of anything, other than a few statements that he allegedly made.

Basically whoever the GOP puts up the Dems will try to portray him as racist. You would think that this most recent election result would cause them to rethink that strategy... 

[philothea]

16 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Does anyone have handy an article or source that has a more or less comprehensive index of reasons for considering Steve Bannon to be a racist? My very short search did not turn up anything solid, and I do not have time to dig in more depth.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/the-radical-anti-conservatism-of-stephen-bannon/496796/

This is a pretty good round up of his behaviors so far. It's from August, so nothing to do with his recent appointment. 

It seems to me that he's not personally a racist, but he's perfectly happy to promote racist causes if it fits his own agenda... which in effect is kind of the same thing. 

[Amppax]

24 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Does anyone have handy an article or source that has a more or less comprehensive index of reasons for considering Steve Bannon to be a racist? My very short search did not turn up anything solid, and I do not have time to dig in more depth.

I don't consider Bannon a racist (though he may well be), I consider him an enabler of racists. It is indisputable that under his leadership, Breitbart embraced and actively sought to market itself as the champion of the alt-right. Per Breitbart's own article on what the alt-right is ("An Establishment Conservatives Guide to the Alt-Right"), the movement is vile, and the fact that Trump chooses as his chief strategist someone who has actively embraced this moniker (whether for political gain or from genuine sentiment) is troublesome. 

Of course, defenders of Trump have been insistent that this characterization is unfair (see Dave Armstrong's extensive defense of Bannon: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2016/11/mark-shea-lies-bannonbreitbart-the-novelty-of-facts.html). I personally think that Yiannopolous's article is pretty damning. Or the article on the Daily Stormer "A Normie's Guide to the Alt-Right." 

Edited November 22, 2016 by Amppax

[Nihil Obstat]

5 minutes ago, philothea said:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/the-radical-anti-conservatism-of-stephen-bannon/496796/

This is a pretty good round up of his behaviors so far. It's from August, so nothing to do with his recent appointment. 

It seems to me that he's not personally a racist, but he's perfectly happy to promote racist causes if it fits his own agenda... which in effect is kind of the same thing. 

I do not see a single accusation of racism in that article. Did I miss something? It just seemed like a long, well-written complaint about a 'radical right-winger'.

Just now, Amppax said:

I don't consider Bannon a racist (though he may well be), I consider him an enabler of racists. It is indisputable that under his leadership, Breitbart embraced and actively sought to market itself as the champion of the alt-right. Per Breitbart's own article on what the alt-right is ("An Establishment Conservatives Guide to the Alt-Right"), the movement is vile, and the fact that Trump chooses as his chief strategist someone who has actively embraced this moniker (whether for political gain or from genuine sentiment) is troublesome. 

Of course, defenders of Trump have been insistent that this characterization is unfair. I personally think that Yiannopolous's article is pretty damning. Or the article on the Daily Stormer "A Normie's Guide to the Alt-Right." 

That connection seems a bit too tenuous to me. Yes, there is an undeniable racist element in the alt-right. Yes, Bannon is a key figure in the alt-right. Unless there is something I am missing, I do not see enough from these facts alone to conclude that Bannon supports the racist faction of the alt-right. And simple guilt by association is too weak; those are the tactics from progressives that led to Trump's victory in the first place.

[Amppax]

3 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I do not see a single accusation of racism in that article. Did I miss something? It just seemed like a long, well-written complaint about a 'radical right-winger'.

That connection seems a bit too tenuous to me. Yes, there is an undeniable racist element in the alt-right. Yes, Bannon is a key figure in the alt-right. Unless there is something I am missing, I do not see enough from these facts alone to conclude that Bannon supports the racist faction of the alt-right. And simple guilt by association is too weak; those are the tactics from progressives that led to Trump's victory in the first place.

I don't see how it's a tenuous connection, Bannon basically engineered his rise on the back of the alt-right, a movement which, at its best, is simply offensive for the sake of causing outrage. Guilt by association is only weak if you can argue that one is ignorant of the obvious links between the alt-right and white nationalism. I think that argument is just not plausible. Yiannopolous' piece is full of praise for "intellectuals" such as Richard Spencer. 

[philothea]

8 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I do not see a single accusation of racism in that article. Did I miss something? It just seemed like a long, well-written complaint about a 'radical right-winger'.

Right. That was why I said "It seems to me that he's not personally a racist."  (Though it may be academic if he does so much to promote other racists.) 

[Nihil Obstat]

10 minutes ago, Amppax said:

I don't see how it's a tenuous connection, Bannon basically engineered his rise on the back of the alt-right, a movement which, at its best, is simply offensive for the sake of causing outrage. Guilt by association is only weak if you can argue that one is ignorant of the obvious links between the alt-right and white nationalism. I think that argument is just not plausible. Yiannopolous' piece is full of praise for "intellectuals" such as Richard Spencer. 

Offensive for the sake of being offensive, essentially trolling, is a far cry from actual racism though. I think there is a fair argument to be made that even some of the racism in the alt-right is just particularly vulgar trolling. Personally I think that the racist fringe of the alt-right, while certainly present, is not as widespread as some would have us believe. I am open to being proven wrong though. I just want to see more than opinion pieces.

[philothea]

Nevermind racism. Having the man who is arguably the world's foremost professional troll as the president's chief strategist is unnerving. What kind of strategies is he likely to use?

I do wish people would focus less on the supporting fringe alt-right folks. They're not the real issue. 

[Amppax]

26 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Offensive for the sake of being offensive, essentially trolling, is a far cry from actual racism though. I think there is a fair argument to be made that even some of the racism in the alt-right is just particularly vulgar trolling. Personally I think that the racist fringe of the alt-right, while certainly present, is not as widespread as some would have us believe. I am open to being proven wrong though. I just want to see more than opinion pieces.

What Breitbart has tried to do under Bannon's leadership, however, is draw a distinction between "real" racism and white identity politics. I'm basing this on the articles on the alt-right published at Breitbart. Such a distinction is nonsense, and simply legitimizes racism. 

[Nihil Obstat]

5 minutes ago, Amppax said:

What Breitbart has tried to do under Bannon's leadership, however, is draw a distinction between "real" racism and white identity politics. I'm basing this on the articles on the alt-right published at Breitbart. Such a distinction is nonsense, and simply legitimizes racism. 

Perhaps. I am not familiar with that content.

[Amppax]

3 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Perhaps. I am not familiar with that content.

Again, I think Yiannopolous's article representative. In it he holds up Richard Spencer and others up as legitimate pillars of the alt-right, the same figures Trump and Bannon are now disavowing and claiming they would never and have never promoted. Perhaps the argument could be made that Bannon didn't write the article, therefore isn't responsible. 

That article isn't the only example, simply the easiest to hold up as representative. 

Edited November 22, 2016 by Amppax

[Nihil Obstat]

At the same time, Yiannopoulos seems to be the perfect example of a provocateur. I have not read the article, but is it a possibility that his support for that guy (with whom I am also not familiar) can be qualified in that manner? 

[Amppax]

8 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

At the same time, Yiannopoulos seems to be the perfect example of a provocateur. I have not read the article, but is it a possibility that his support for that guy (with whom I am also not familiar) can be qualified in that manner? 

Perhaps. Though he pretty explicitly tries to draw a line between Spencer and "real" racism, what he describes in the article as the "1488ers." There's other articles one could look at, as well. 

I think the most charitable interpretation of Bannon is that he's two steps removed from the alt-right. Basically Bannon --> Milo --> Alt-Right. I suppose some are fine with that. 

Edited November 22, 2016 by Amppax

[Nihil Obstat]

Backing up a bit, to what extent should we say that being associated with potentially racist people does actively legitimize racism? Morally speaking it strikes me as falling somewhere in the middle between formal support and formal resistance. What I do not want to say is that being associated with X Y Z is *just as bad* as actually being X Y Z.