Our problems remain epistemological.

Thursday, July 19, 2018

CONLAWPROF: A Post on Nativists and White Supremacists

Got it. It is all clear now.

You wrote: “It is a bald racial appeal to [Trump’s] white supremacist, nativist base.”

When you wrote the above, you were not saying that Trump’s base is made of “white supremacist[s]” and “nativist[s]”. Instead you were speaking to that part of Trump’s base which is “white supremacist” and “nativist”. It is really obvious from context—except that it is not. And your after-the-fact, clarification is very helpful. And we should also generously ascribe the best interpretation we can to your original and revised statements.

Of course . . . don’t do any of this close textual parsing of ambiguous language for Trump, and don’t look to his after-the-fact clarifications. That would be totally crazy. Makes no sense. Totally different. Of course, we should a hold a businessperson-turned-politician to a stricter standard than a [legal] academic. See Trump, Academia, and Hyperbole, http://reformclub.blogspot.com/2016/08/trump-academia-and-hyperbole.html. Makes complete sense.

By the way . . . throw me a bone here . . . you are now saying you were only speaking to part of Trump’s base. How big a part do you (and Professor X) think that segment of Trump’s base is? Does it include Trump’s Hispanic voters (maybe some 20% of the Hispanic vote) and his African-American voters (maybe some 10% of the African-American vote). And if it does not include them, exactly who is left in that base that you are calling nativist, etc? Who?

Throw me a bone. What precisely do you and Professor X (now) mean?


Seth Barrett Tillman, CONLAWPROF: A Post on Nativists and White Supremacists, New Reform Club (July 19, 2018, 6:05 PM), https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2018/07/conlawprof-post-on-nativists-and-white.html 


Tom Van Dyke said...

Slime is the lingua franca of the edu-industrial complex elite. They don't even realize they're doing it.

JR said...

Let's address definition of white supremacist. The operative definition includes any whitebread American who resists anti-white leftist haters (and white leftist self-haters).
That's not advocating supremacy, just self-defense.

Then there's 'nativism'. I'd say the term "Know Nothing" is more descriptive of the diversity-obsessed, oikophobic open-borders types who refuse to acknowledge any negative impacts or simply don't care.

As an aside, it's funny we never hear Middle Eastern Muslims vilified as 'nativist' for rejecting Jewish refugee diversity, or Native Americans for their xenophobic response to European migrant diversity via scalping.

NO GOOGLES said...

Remember, it's only white people who get vilified for showing any kind of self-preservation or self-interest. Every other group is encouraged and celebrated ad nauseam for blatant racial appeals.

And if you notice or talk about this, make sure your identity isn't know, because you will be labeled as a WHITE SUPREMACIST for merely thinking that white people should have the same right to advocate that everyone else does.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

The sentence does nearly equate nativists with white supremacists. I would allow that the writer sees some slight difference between them, but in the main, is declaring the two overlap enormously. This is not an intellectually or practically accurate statement about his opponents. It is a social statement about the writer, declaring what he feels because of mind-reading, telling you to feel it too.