One will note none of the rabid commissars on this board can't actually, ever, provide a solution to the problems of inequity (whatever that means in the moment), other then shaming whites, in particular white men for not gelding themselves before the many-faced god of "socialist libertarianism."

They forever pit everyone, in a hierarchy of oppression, against a hierarchy of victimization. The order of oppressed versus victim constantly shifts given the conversation since ambiguity is necessary to keep non-socialist libertarians on their heels.

Just remember. They're obsessed with power, and when people who believe in individual liberty, accountability, and a responsibility toward their fellow man by being law abiding citizens vote against their interests people like EAllusion and Chap will be the ones holding that gelding knife.

Eta: EAllusion & Chap thinking themselves clever just provided an object lesson on why the Right fears the Left. In this case, I think the Right is justifiably wary of the Left.

- Doc

Maybe we could try to take this step by step? That way it will be clear where our views diverge, and why, and we might be able to understand one another even if we don't agree. So here are some propositions that you might or might not agree with:

A. The right to vote in a democracy comes with moral responsibilities. Thus one ought not to vote for a party or candidate without taking the time to learn about what policies they advocate and considering the likely impact of those policies on the country as a whole. Your fellow citizens have the right to expect that you will not use your vote without such due consideration, or simply to amuse yourself. (Of course the right to vote is not CONDITIONAL on the voter carrying out such civic responsibilities. However, one's continuing respect for a fellow-citizen might be so conditional.)

Are you with me there? OK, then we go on to:

B. Having cast an informed vote and put a party or a person in power, the citizen who voted for them cannot avoid sharing in responsibility for the consequences of the policies they voted for being put into practice. (If the citizen simply voted at random and in ignorance of the policies in question that criticism does not apply , though others do.)

How about that? Basically it's this: "Candidate X said clearly he would do Y. You voted for him and he was elected and proceeded to do Y. So you share responsibility for the consequences of candidate X doing Y."

Now we come to particulars:

C. Candidate Trump, from his very first announcement of his intention to run, foregrounded hispanic immigrants as a major and immediate threat to the personal security of US citizens ('murders, rapists ..."). He referred to this threat repeatedly in campaign rallies, and promised tough and coercive action to end the threat ("Build the WALL!" and so on). In office, he has continued the same rhetoric, and acted on it.

Basically the case, or not, would you say?

So finally we come to:

D. Having voted for Trump in full knowledge of his stated policies and attitudes, a voter can reasonably be said to share some responsibility for the consequences of his policies. And those consequences are certainly an increased tendency in US society to view all hispanic people as potential threats, and thus from time to time to motivate unstable individuals to act on those perceptions by attacking innocent people, purely on the ground that they are, or appear to be, hispanic. And it was not hard, listening to candidate Trump, to see that this kind of thing was likely to happen.

I'd be interested to know at which point in the above listing of propositions our views part company.

.

Yes of course. The woman who carried out that attack was as responsible as a probably mildly deranged person can be responsible.

But ...

do I understand you to say that if you voted for somebody who you saw as a matter of deliberate policy whipping up hatred and fear of hispanics in order to get elected, in a manner likely to empower and enrage unstable individuals like the woman who carried out this attack, you have nothing to reproach yourself for at all? You ought to feel no responsibility for what happened?

And you think that attitude on the part of voters is, in the long run, conducive to the health of civil society?

People are cross-pressured in so many different ways when making voting decisions that it's hard to blame them for every trait a candidate has if they voted for that candidate. Few get to vote for exactly what they want. On top of that, there's also problems with predicting how a candidate will behave when you vote for them. Many people who voted for Obama thought they were voting for a rebuke of George W. Bush War on Terror policies and instead got a reinforcement of them.

All that said, Trump was so overt in inflammation of racist resentment, particularly towards Mexican immigrants and Muslims, that a vote for Trump should probably be viewed at least as indifference to that. The voter might not like the fact that Trump does that, but they almost certainly don't care enough that he does it to not help him take power. A white supremacist is fine so long as he promises lower taxes. It's hard not to condemn that indifference. Trump wasn't subtle.

If a candidate I would've really liked was the Republican nominee, say Justin Amash, but for whatever reason he also ran on Trump style racial resentment, I'd have to not vote for him because that trait ought to be disqualifying. The only thing I can say in defense of Trump voters, racist or no, is that voting does almost nothing to help a candidate win power and is largely a symbolic act. Our condemnation should be proportional to that.

Ah yes, "racism and xenophobia are bad" is now a leftist position.

.

Hey Ceeboo. Do you believe that radical Muslim Imams who encouarge terrorist violence can be condemned if others engage in terrorist violence in response? Or is your view that perpetrators deserve sole condemnation just specically focused on when Mexican-Americans get beat up?

Heck, do you think it is beyond the pale to even discuss how hateful rhetoric may have a causal role in increases in violence? Or, again is this only off the table when Republicans do it?

;

Notice yet again how EAllusion sidesteps any solution that his socialist libertarianism would magically introduce, blame shifts the racism and xenophobia which alleviates the criminal from personal accountability. The only people that can ever be truly guilty in our comrades' warped and perverse world view are white males who introduced a system of oppression which must be overthrown, and who enjoy a white male CIA privilege that forever victimizes everyone else (on a sliding scale of course).

I guess we'll be celebrating another 4 years of a Trump presidency the way this is going...

- Doc

Ceebs, did you even read your own OP? "Political partisanship accusations" all the way, dude. It looks like you're losing your sheet. You'd better stick to gifs and memes. Chap and EAllusion are getting under your skin because they're using arguments you aren't able to counter. You need to rethink your approach. Or just call me some names and run. But I think you're better than that.

.

EAllusion: Encouraging dehumanizing racism seems like a good explanation for the huge increase in racist crimes we are seeing.

Doc: Cuck! Can't explain how anarcho-syndicalism creates a post-racial utopia, can you? This is why Trump won. How can someone not vote for white supremacists in the face of this? Someone fetch me my fainting couch.

You are employing a specific argument that only the people who commit acts of violence may be condemned for the violence happening. People who encouraged it or fostered a mentality that led to it are off the table. Me, recognizing that you probably are only saying this out of convienence and don't really believe it, asked if you actually apply this idea consistently.

The answer is no, you don't, but also that you're very mad.

Just because Drumpf is an open bigot and racist doesn't mean all the idiotic things he says have an influence on his base. Why, you'd have to be stoned to think that!

His base were racist morons all along, and were always this openly racist, don'cha know?

*sigh*

I have always feared the right's ability to completely ignore reality in favor of their own personal fantasies. Religion is only one example.

Fixed it for you.

One will note how EAllusion keeps trying to shift the conversation away from the OP to how White people are to blame, for, well, everything & has yet to offer any solution as to how socialist libertarianism could have prevented CA Hispanic deaths from reaching 2x that of Whites and how said policies would've prevented a back woman from braining 92-year-old Mexican in 2018.

- Doc

Ceeboo minus smilies and 'hi my best friend!!!' stuff is a bit scary, isn't he?

So, changing the variables to something more familiar:

Man with toothbrush moustache:
The wicked Jews are behind all the misfortunes of our country! Only I can save the people from the disasters that will befall them! Without me, our German people will lose control of their country!

Nice Germans :
Oh dear. Better vote for the toothbrush man! Those Jews really have to be dealt with!

Man with toothbrush moustache:
Goody, now I am Chancellor! The German people and me together will defeat the evil plans of the Jews!! Time to take action!!

Low-life inadequate who needs hate to justify his pointless existence
Ha! Now the German people have realised how awful the Jews are!! Time for action!!! (Goes out and beats an elderly Jew on the head with a brick)

Nice Germans
Nothing to do with us! We're really nice people and we did nothing to encourage that Low-life inadequate. Nothing at all!!

We're just gonna lock this one in. Funny how rabid bigots end up acting when they think they're in a safe space...

- Doc

Don't you think the comparison is apt?

Ceeboo wants to be able to vote for somebody who openly promotes fear and hatred of hispanic people, and then to have no responsibility when sick and violent people target hispanic people with violence as a result of what his favoured candidate repeated at rally after rally, in front of cheering crowds of people who went out and voted for him.

Nice Germans wanted to vote for somebody who openly promoted fear and hatred of Jews, and then to have no responsibility when sick and violent people targeted Jews with violence as a result of what their favoured candidate repeated at rally after rally, in front of cheering crowds of people who went out and voted for him.

[We aren't talking Final Solution here, of course. In Germany that came later; in the US, fortunately, such things is not in prospect. But lower level one on one violence against 'them migrants' is here already. Thanks to Trump and Friends!]

.

.