|
|
|
|
|
|
by matt4077
3229 days ago
|
|
|
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 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.