Simone Biles jabs Trump: 'I love my Black job'
Simone Biles jabs Trump: 'I love my Black job'
You're viewing a single thread.
As a flaming red socialist, I will say that (while it seems to have been effective), the "black jobs" rhetoric is disingenuous.
Saying that [x group] will take [y group] jobs is a standard thing. You could say, "California expats will take Texan jobs," for instance. This doesn't mean there is a specific class of job that Texans are suitable for. It means there are jobs that could be held by Texans that would be taken by California expats instead. In Trump's case, there is no evidence for such job-taking, but he clearly means to say something specific - and it isn't that jobs should be/are segregated.
So, anyway. It doesn't really matter so long as it hurts Trump, but this type of rhetoric is misleading, disingenuous, and ultimately harmful to the state of political discourse.
Edit: This caused a shit storm. This is the point I'm trying but apparently failing to make:
When we make criticisms of the other side, those criticisms are usually stronger in the long run if they're based on the actual positions they take rather than straw-manned ones. And I think this is "black jobs" rhetoric is a straw-manned critique.
The problem with the "black Jobs" rhetoric is that it was made in reference to immigrant labor, implying that black Americans are a permanent racial underclass competing for low wage jobs with new immigrants. Trump broke the cardinal rule of Republican politics: he told the truth.
That's why Biles' statement is notable, because her "black job" is to be a world champion.
Yeah, that's fair. But it does require reading that implication into what he said. While he may very well believe that, idk if it's what he meant or not.
A speaker's public record provides context for their current commentary. Trump's tells us he is a bigot. Specifically a white supremacist. His recent rhetoric leans in to this. When pressed to clarify, justify, or recant these statements he either deflects or doubles down.
There is no reason to think he is suddenly well intentioned, operating in good faith, or otherwise deserving of some deference of judgement.
It doesn't really require giving him credit, just looking at the words at face value. All I'm saying is in this instance he was trying to be racist, just maybe not in this particular way. He was obviously trying the standard republican tactic of playing groups against one another to get political power. And while he has proven to be racist numerous times, I just don't think that it is clear from what he said that he intended to communicate that black people can't have certain jobs. That specifically. He can still be a racist and not be communicating that particular thing.
I'm not defending Trump, just saying that we should hold ourselves to high rhetorical standards where possible OR at least recognize when we're twisting things to score political points. That line is very blurred in modern political rhetoric.
Either way, good on Simone for using her platform. I just don't think that this criticism is in good faith - which can be okay, especially when the other side is constantly arguing in bad faith. I just think that it can have consequences to the way we treat political issues more broadly.
Honestly, I truly hope you're full of shit and none of this is in good faith, because holy shit.
Fucking garbage liberal (the actual term, not Fox News version) attitude that's allowing the Republican party to get this close to turning the US into an authoritarian state with a malignant narcissist as their literal god.
That shit you mentioned doesn't work with fascists. They are actively using your liberalism as a weapon against all of us. And this is not new, it's a pattern throughout history.
I would urge people that agree with the comment above to do some research (like actual research, like reading books. Primary sources and shit) about how the liberal centrist parties in Germany and the rest of Europe, were ultimately the ones who opened the door for Hitler (after the Nazi party had recently lost seats in Parliament and did not have a majority).
Hindenburg, and others, eventually backed Hitler and made him Chancellor because they thought it would help their political careers (Hindenburg also believed he'd be able to keep him in check. As if a fascist can be kept in check through purely political means). How do you think that worked out for them?
Fascists take what a functioning society would call good ethics, fairness, empathy, etc. and weaponize them against their opponents. To them, they see weaknesses to be exploited. Just like Hindenburg was (and every other liberal democracy in the region that had policies of "appeasement" toward the Nazis.
They/you think this is just one more political party, and should be treated as such because of course they're going to follow the rules and act in good faith... Then as soon as they can they seize power. Whoops. Remember what I said about Nazis not having a majority in Parliament? Well guess who they formed a coalition government with, allowing Hitler to take power through legal means...
And it works every fucking time. Because now the choice (for the liberal) is, "do I go against a fundamental belief, and sink to this fascist's level because that's the only thing that works on these people? Or do I let them use me as a tool to help fulfill their goals of destroying our democracy, and ultimately, genocide of some flavor because that's where it always goes (probably start with the trans folks again, like they did in Germany)?
Now go back and look at which groups in the Weimar Republic fought tooth and nail against the Nazis in the 30s... That's right, communists and social democrats.
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.
When we misinterpret something trump says intentionally to score political points, which I believe we are doing in this case, there are pros and cons to that.
See this is exactly what I'm talking about, right here. They know that this is the exact kind of shit people like you get caught up on, and they use it as a weapon against us.
This is a man who does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. If this were a vacuum, if it was Mitt Romney or something, yeah sure. But this is Donald Trump. A literal white supremacist.
Maybe you're only aware of his exploits starting in 2016, or even back during the Apprentice, so here you go.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump
A wiki article about it that is literally big enough to warrant it's own page, which I'm sure would be the case for any non-racist right (show me one person who isn't racist but has a "Racial views of X" Wiki page)?
I'm glad you've read things, but maybe it's time for a refresher. Fascist tactics have changed a bit with the Internet and everything, but by and large, the tactics are the same as they were 100 years ago.
Just be mindful that these people know your virtues and are actively using them for their own gain, to ultimately take away your freedom and possibly kill you.
He hasn't exactly been jumping at the opportunity to clarify
He kinda did, though. He tried to say that a "black job" was any job a black person had. I think his handlers told him to shut up about it because it was drawing negative press.
Again, this whole "the blacks" vs "evil mexican immigrants" thing is racist. But that =/= "black people can only have certain jobs". Just like when they drummed up this same rhetoric targeted at rural white people with bush, romney, mccain, and trump for all 3 of his campaigns ... they always do this. And clearly they think white people can have all sorts of jobs.
If you don't read that implication into it, you're just straight-up illiterate.
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.
No, we understand your point perfectly: you're making a concern-trolling argument to shill for Trump.
Additionally, you can fuck right off with the condescending lie that the only possible reason someone might disagree with you is that they "can't understand" (i.e. implying that they're stupid or ignorant).
Nope. I'm actually being good faith. Genuinely. Check my post history if you want. You can disagree with someone and acknowledge they aren't arguing in bad faith. Like I think you're good faith even though you're coming across with a bunch of ad hominems and stuff, but I think you believe what you're saying.
And I'm not being condescending. I think people can absolutely understand my point. Otherwise, I wouldn't waste time trying to communicate it. I'm saying I think people are mischaracterizing my position.
Literally, all I'm saying is: when we make criticisms of the other side, those criticisms are usually stronger in the long run if they're based on the actual positions they take rather than straw-manned ones. And I think this is a strawmanned critique. That's my whole point.
And I’m not being condescending. I think people can absolutely understand my point.
Your implication is that if they understood, they would agree. That's the condescending part.
In reality, we understand but disagree, because you're the one who's actually wrong. You need to get that through your head and quit insulting everybody's intelligence.
Literally, all I’m saying is: when we make criticisms of the other side, those criticisms are usually stronger in the long run if they’re based on the actual positions they take rather than straw-manned ones. And I think this is a strawmanned critique.
And literally everyone else in this thread is telling you you're wrong -- delusionally so. This is the same [im]plausibly deniable mob-boss speak Trump uses All. The. Fucking. Time. It's not hard to recognize! It's literally his favorite rhetorical technique.
Blows my mind that there are still people out there willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. Stop.
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.
People choose to live in CA or TX.
Skin color isn't a choice. It's not the same thing.
Add to it that it was uttered by a notorious racist who has been a bigoted piece shit for 40+ years.
The implication is clear.
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.