> Obama has not denounced radical Islamic terrorism

Well yea, Obama, like George Bush before him, didn't use those exact words because it's a pointlessly offensive term. There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Almost all of those 1.6 billion people are peaceful, responsible humans, just living their lives. Obama and Bush denounced terrorism all the time. But both of them, being somewhat more thoughtful than Trump, decided not to lump those 1.6 billion in with a tiny group of murdering lunatics, by naming those murdering lunatics after peaceful group's religion.

It would be as if we called KKK lynchings to Radical Christian Terrorism, as the KKK's makes all kinds of claims relating their batshit ideology to Christianity. Doesn't mean it has anything to do with Christianity though.

In short, your comparison doesn't hold up at all, as Obama consistently denounced terrorism by Al Qaeda and ISIS in clear, strong terms.

Trump got pitched a total softball, and he somehow managed to screw it up. Violence at a rally organized by white supremacists? Seems pretty cut and dry.

Radical Islamists are to Muslims as white supremacists are to white people.

"This has nothing to do with Islam" vs. "this has nothing to do with Republicans"

In the sense that are a tiny subset of a much larger group? Well, sure I agree.

Or in the sense that "white supremacist" besmirches white people the way that "Radical Islamist" besmirches Islam? Ok, I'm not against referring to them just as "racists" or the groups by their respective names (Neo-Nazis, KKK, and so on).

In either case, your comparison between Trump and Obama doesn't hold up.

> "Trump has not denounced white supremacist terrorism" is the equivalent to "Obama has not denounced radical Islamic terrorism".

Obama DID denounce "radical Islamic terrorism," though he did not use that exact term, for the reasons described above. For example, Obama said the following regarding the San Bernardino shooters:

> So far, we have no evidence that the killers were directed by a terrorist organization overseas, or that they were part of a broader conspiracy here at home. But it is clear that the two of them had gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West. They had stockpiled assault weapons, ammunition, and pipe bombs. So this was an act of terrorism, designed to kill innocent people.

Trump denounced the racists in Charlottesville on Monday, but his statement Saturday did not.

It just vaguely criticized "hatred and bigotry," without referencing the fact that in this case the hatred and bigotry was that of Neo-Nazis, KKK, and other racist groups. To me, his statement sounded like he thought the counter-protesters were equally guilty of "hatred and bigotry", and I think many other people felt the same.

If Trump's statement Saturday had been like the one on Monday, there would have been no controversy.

> In the sense that are a tiny subset of a much larger group? Well, sure I agree.

> Or in the sense that "white supremacist" besmirches white people the way that "Radical Islamist" besmirches Islam? Ok, I'm not against referring to them just as "racists" or the groups by their respective names (Neo-Nazis, KKK, and so on).

It's that the larger group gets painted with the bad acts of the malicious minority.

And it's more about the motte/bailey thing than the specific words in the name, which makes "racism" the same problem.

When you have serious people arguing that all white people are racist because they benefit from structural inequality, that word isn't adequately distinguishing what the KKK does from everyone else.

We need something that means "definition by motives" and not the other ones:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/

Bigotry might be a good alternative -- but that's the one he used.

> Obama DID denounce "radical Islamic terrorism," though he did not use that exact term, for the reasons described above.

Trump did denounce white supremacist groups, both before and after Friday.

> It just vaguely criticized "hatred and bigotry," without referencing the fact that in this case the hatred and bigotry was that of Neo-Nazis, KKK, and other racist groups. To me, his statement sounded like he thought the counter-protesters were equally guilty of "hatred and bigotry", and I think many other people felt the same.

And maybe this is really the crux of the matter -- it isn't about "Trump fails to denounce white supremacy", it's that he implicitly criticized the people protesting it.

But only if the counter-protesters are guilty of "hatred and bigotry" -- and if some of them are, why is it wrong to criticize that?

I agree with some of your points, like that there is a sometimes a bit of motte/bailey with the term "racist". But I don't see the Saturday statement as a denunciation (as the word is generally understood by the media and public).

If after the San Bernardino shootings, Obama had said: "We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious violence and use of force on both sides," I don't think it would have been accepted by the public, not just with the partisans, but more generally. Because it makes it sound like Obama considers the police that shot the terrorists to be as bad as the terrorists.

I think we have the same situation here. "Racism" sometimes is used to label non-racist people, but that is not the case here. The protesters were actual racists, like Nazis, KKK, white nationalists and so on. I.e. groups that really do want to racially discriminate and worse, i.e. racists i.e. bigots. These people should be denounced because they are bigots and because they became violent.

The counter protesters aren't bigots. If counter protesters were instigating violence (I don't think they were), then I of course don't support that. But even in that case it only makes sense for Trump to clearly word the statement in a way that makes it clear he is only denouncing the counter-protesters for being violent, not for being bigots.

I'm sure the counter-protesters aren't perfect people, but that doesn't mean we can't differentiate between these groups. http://lesswrong.com/lw/mm/the_fallacy_of_gray/

The difference is that the President, qua office, is the leader of the society that these white supremacists hail from. For islam, he is an outsider.

Obama's rational for his decision is widely known: That the criticism of an outsider, denouncing their culture as extremism and terrorism will, in the ears of even the most progressive, secular muslim, only be understood as an insult, and will therefore only lead to further the narrative of a "Clash of Civilisation" a la Fukuyama.

That statement can be argued with. But to feign ignorance can only be considered bad faith.

Note also that nobody is demanding any laws. What people are clamouring for are honesty, decency, and leadership.

> The difference is that the President, qua office, is the leader of the society that these white supremacists hail from. For islam, he is an outsider.

The problem with Obama's argument isn't that it's wrong, it's that it's all too symmetrical. Trump was barely accepted by the Republicans -- he's from New York. He's the outsider.

And Democrats have been doing a motte and bailey thing with racism for years, where denouncing racism is the motte and redefining racism to mean anything they disagree with is the bailey.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey

So on one hand, anyone who e.g. believes there should be equality of opportunity but accepts that it may not lead to equality of outcomes, or doesn't support unlimited immigration, or voted for Trump, is labeled a white supremacist. On the other hand, everyone is required to overtly denounce white supremacists, even though we just got through telling anyone who voted for Trump that they are a white supremacist.

Except Trump constantly winks at white supremacists and actively seeks their vote.

> Except Trump constantly winks at white supremacists and actively seeks their vote.

This argument has never made any sense. White supremacists are concentrated in states that Republicans win by such large margins that victory is assured regardless of how the minority sporting swastika tattoos votes.

If this weekend has taught us anything it's that most white supremacists aren't rednecks from the deep south with swastika tattoos. A lot of the are perfectly normal looking, university educated young men living in nice suburbs all across the country.

What did you possibly think before?

That bad people fit the cartoonish representation pushed by tag team of media and stereotyping?

Given the post I was replying to it seemed important to reiterate this fact.

His Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, has strong ties to white supremacy, and back in 1986 was considered by both sides of the political aisle to be too racist to be a federal judge. Sessions has a record doing such wonderful things as suing voting rights activists for trying to register black voters[1], and joking that the worst thing about the KKK is their marijuana-smoking members.

So tell me: what kind of President would select a guy like this as his Attorney General?

[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/magazine/the-voter-fraud-...

Cf. Reverend Wright?

Proof?

Trump's Twitter retweet, literally last night. He retweeted a racist dogwhistle from an Alt Right personality hours after Trump supposedly condemned them.

For those of us who don't follow his every twitter move, which tweet are you referring to?

He retweeted this last night: https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/897107711434915842

That's racist? How is pointing out an ongoing bloodbath in Chicago, where most victims are not well-to-do fellow "white supremists", racist? To be fair you have to admit Trump has a lot more on his mind than just one white supremacist rally and he's been trying to get involved in Chicago's violence since before the election.

He hasn't been trying to get involved, he's done fuck all except tweet about it and use it as a dog whistle to talk about how insane those blacks in Chicago are at his bizarre post-election rallies.

But he has a black friend who will fix Chicago violence in a week!!

There is a big difference between ongoing gang violence and a terrorist attack. They are both problems, yes, but a terrorist attack by a Nazi during a public demonstration is by far bigger news.

Yeah it's called a dog whistle. A white supremacist killed a woman in Charlottesville last weekend, but look what black people did in Chicago.

The content of the tweet is noise, it's the source of the tweet that is the signal and the message re-tweeting a tweet from that source sends.

That's classic whataboutism and incorrect as well. There's been plenty of media coverage about the Chicago gang violence (and other inner city gang violence) over the years. Political protests, as well as terrorist acts, do tend to receive more intense coverage than ongoing systematic violence.

I don't know about this Twitter account, but I do personally consider it racist when reporting or discussions are angled to only report ethnic group targets (or other tribes) negatively. Whataboutism like this is also a signal to me.

White supremacists feel winked at, isn't that enough?

http://www.businessinsider.com/richard-spencer-says-trump-di...

Also, if you are not familiar with "white nationalism" or Richard Spencer, this interview should help: https://www.revealnews.org/episodes/a-frank-conversation-wit...

Has trump used that term "radical Islamic terrorism" since he took office? I thought I'd read that the military had finally convinced him that they thought it was counter-productive. (edit: turns out he last used it in July, so he's still not doing what the military advisors suggest).

This reminds me that during his rallies, Trump would point to a camera that he knew was contractually obliged to point only at him, and tell the crowd that the fake news media didn't want to show his crowd.

Just in case you think that he's just a total idiot, who regularly complains about the sitting President following military advice. No, he's a mendacious demagogue who intentionally riles his idiotic followers up by pretending that Obama following military protocol is either cowardice or complicity in terror.

> Two Republican lawmakers in North Dakota started the trend in January when they introduced a bill that would protect motorists who hit pedestrians blocking traffic, as long as the consequences are unintentional.