This blog is meant to be a platform to see other perspectives. It is imperative that we not attack each other, but listen from a truly inquisitive perspective. If you're looking to speak before you think, judge without considering, or bait people to get your points across, this platform is not for you. We must keep an open mind if we expect to elicit change. Please comment with articulate analysis. One worded and inflammatory responses, or dismissal of anyone's opinions without explanation doesn't help anyone see your perspective.

This blog is a collection of other people’s opinions, which I’d like to offer as a starting point for discourse. These are not my opinions, but things that have provoked passionate conversations in their communities, and I present them to you to gain different perspectives on the current state of affairs.

This blog won't permit any form of bigotry. Bigoted language includes, but is not limited to, slurs based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and disability. If you encounter Bigotry please consider the power of speaking to the author in a manner that may illuminate them before shaming them.

Creating a place where mistakes can be learned from is one of the driving forces behind this blog.

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Stumped: How does anyone rationalize racist/sexist language in leaders and claim they're not supporting racism/sexism?

How does anyone rationalize racist/sexist language in leaders and claim they're not supporting racism/sexism?

I am unable to answer this question, because I cannot rationalize how someone who claims to not support racism/sexism can vote for someone who has publicly made racist/sexist comments.

Yet, there are marginalized and minority community members who have voted for leaders that are directly related to racism/sexism and racists/sexists comments.

  1. Can we find some of these people in our own communities to make us understand how they answer this question?
  2. Can you submit examples of media that are fact-checked and accurate examples of how people rationalize this question?

Related topics


  1. just because a comment was needed....

    as a democrat and as a Clinton supporter, I'll say that there are things that she did and said that I don't agree with, but allow as mis-slips and unintentional innuendo. Does that same thing happen when you're far right on the spectrum?

    1. It seems hard to compare a mis-slip with appointing Steve Bannon

  2. I think there are a couple of factors here that can lead folks from marginalized/minority communities to vote for someone like Trump:
    1. He does not stick to his words, and in general, his words are meaningless because he vascillates so much from one stance to another. So people learn not to listen to his words but more listen between the lines at his intentions. So to be specific, he says latinos immigrants are criminal (dont want to repeat the exact horrible statements) in one speech, then he says he wants to clean up illegal immigrants to be fair ti the other legal immigrants that are already legal or going through immigration processes "the right way".

    2.I think many people have built a mistrust of politicians and frankly don't know what to believe in the political headlines like bengazi and the issues in the middle east that led to isis and other humanitarian catastrophies. Was Clinton negligence, actions, or lack thereof lead to trouble in the middle east? Although no one would probably make her solely responsible, no one feels confident they know for sure. And given the mess over there, there a cloud of doubt over all active politicians and what the heck their doing over there.

    3. Which brings me to the third factor that lead to the Trump victory. He is seen as an outsider. So the math is, the people don't trust politicians for int'l issues, feel like homeland issues have been ignored, and the ballot has 3 parties that have gotten so little coverage they are guarranteed not to win (green, libertarian, peace and freedom)and the two main choices. One who's been in top politics since the 90s, and the other a businessman (at least that's the average perception, i think he's more of 1% brat who used his brain only to secure his millionaire status and get laid) who only wants to make life great again for the country's and its people.

    That's my two cents.

    1. I appreciate these observations and I think I your first point is the only one I identify as about the topic. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying (I'm paraphrasing, so please correct me) that marginalized groups could vote for him because they see his rhetoric wording as empty and see another future "between the lines at his intentions". Your immigration example is one example, but I'm curious how this principle doesn't take into consideration that his words are giving license to many bigots all over the country that have already attacked black people, women, and muslims quoting Trump's words in the act?

      Again I appreciate your 2 other points, however they speak to reasons why people might vote for Trump, where the question posed is how you can rationalize racist/sexist comments.

  3. Well if we are trying to create a safe place for Trumpeteers to feel open to expressing their views I'm not sure that question really does so...anyway, reading some of the recent Guardian articles legitimized some of my assumptions about why someone voted for him, boiling down to:
    -tired of small business taxes
    -emulates the success of the American Dream
    -Only option for those who want conservative values in White House and Supreme Court

    #1 reason, I believe: he seems like a straight talker. He's not, erratic and contradictory as his statements are its clear he's calculating but executes it in a blundering way. But he doesn't have that scripted smooth academic politically correct cautious diplomatic wishy wash BS that HRC and Obama use. So he seems like more of a straight talker.

    1. Thomas, I want to make sure I respond to your first point. If I understand you, you're saying asking How does anyone rationalize racist/sexist language in leaders and claim they're not supporting racism/sexism is not going to make Trump supporters feel open to express their views?

      How would you ask this question? My wording was specifically crafted to be exact, so I would make any effort to improve it, but I just don't know how to ask that question another way.

      Can you suggest some better wording to ask how racist/sexist comments are rationalized?

      I also noted that you dove down into why people voted for him. I think those are valid opinions and there are plenty of points why some of his platform makes sense, but that is completely separate to asking the question of how you rationalize racist and sexist comments.

  4. (Please excuse my spelling and grammar mistakes by the way, wrote and posted on the go from cell) ;)

  5. I think the labels that are put on Trump, are not fully justified. Calling him a racist, for example, just because he wants to put a fence around our yard, is an unfair label. Walk down your neighborhood street, and most the properties have fences; why, because humans tend to be opportunists. I don't think he wants to build a wall because he hates Mexicans, I think he wants to build a wall to regulate the influx of drugs, weapons, and people who don't have to worry about breaking American laws, because they just get deported back to Mexico, rather then get punished for their crimes.

    1. I don't think he's being labeled a racist for building a wall. I would say the use of the words Murderers and Rapists in reference to people coming from Mexico is a good place to start to a discussion of his racist acts. He has done little to disavow the large number of racist violence across the country that was done while the individuals directly cited his election as a moment that would allow them to act as they want to. That may be indirect, but as a President you must be judged on your influence as well as your direct actions. I would love to hear some other opinions and facts that make the argument on either side.