[ohyes]

The viewpoint is slightly different.

> Racism and misogyny are terrible enough that if you hate it, you must be correct.

This isn't about correctness.

The viewpoint is:

Racism and misogyny are terrible enough that if you support them, you must be evil and desire harm to others, at very least indirectly.

Even if the racists/misogynists of the world were 'correct' I wouldn't want to live in world where we legitimize that. And that's why a lot of us reject him and his policies wholesale.

Saying "well he's right about free trade" (I don't believe this, but as an example) undermines the rhetorical context of fighting something much worse than bad economic policy.

[ThomPete]

Shouldn't we first agree on what constitutes racism and misogyny? It's easy to say that others are and forgetting that most people are to some extent.

Also because someone in your view is misguided about race or gender does that mean you should treat them as I am assuming you believe they treat people of other race or gender?

Why is it a better world to live in where you ban one view rather than the other when the result is more less the same. Someone is getting oppressed.

[ohyes]

> Shouldn't we first agree on what constitutes racism and misogyny?

I think these are pretty well defined.

Racism: Prejudice against others based on race.

Misogyny: Prejudice against women.

> It's easy to say that others are and forgetting that most people are to some extent.

There's a difference between having a normal level of in-group selection bias and realizing it is wrong, and spouting racist/sexist rhetoric.

> Also because someone in your view is misguided about race or gender does that mean you should treat them as I am assuming you believe they treat people of other race or gender?

No. You still let them speak and vote but you don't listen, and if asked, you tell other people they shouldn't listen. You can refuse to let them use your company to spread their hate.

You have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to someone else's bully pulpit.

The concern that racists are getting oppressed is laughable. I don't understand the mental gymnastics required to justify that thought process.

[ThomPete]

Lots of things are well defined only to completely fail when it comes to being used in a real context. There are many obvious examples and even more less obvious examples.

Trump is a good example of a person who has said some racist things but even more things that were interpreted as racist.

We are all racist even if we don't want to be, we cannot help ourselves the question then becomes how do we let that affect us and how we act on that.

And so if it only takes one example to show someone is racist then we all are.

It's much less well defined once you look at the entirety and doesn't just take a sentence out of its context.

Language is tricky and defining something well does not mean it's easy to put things into these boxes.

You are right there is a difference and to the extent, it easy to identify this racist/sexist rhetorics we should obviously object to it.

But it's not much different when liberals paint all Trump voters racist. Very often do we see comments that were not meant racist suddenly be attacked simply because of the person who said it.

You are not a better person just because you are against racism if you base your judgment of what constitutes a racist or a racist remark on who said it and we shouldn't listen to you more by your own definition.

You can very easily be a Trump voter and not a racist and you can eve be a Trump voter and against racism or misogyny as that exist on both sides. Yet listening to the public debate one should think it only happens on one side.

Two wrongs don't make a right and yet it seems like most liberals (and I count myself amongst the liberal crowd) basically justify the sentiment you seem to be supporting with something along the lines of "well he/she started".

There are (luckily) very few racist in the Hitler sense of racist.