TM calls out Trump's racist bigotry

Will Boris Johnson follow suit?

What, condemn his mate, never.

1 Like

He’s right though, isn’t he?

Three of the women he attacked do, indeed, come from a country which currently has a government which is a “complete and total catastrophe” and which is “the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world”…

The United States of America.


Very good Paul, sadly you fail to mention that millions of Americans agree with him.:wink:

Trump still has quite a lot of support, yes, that doesn’t make the comments any more acceptable.

1 Like

it does to americans though… racist bigots :angry:

I would term Trump a racist bigot principally because he holds such an influential office. An office in which he would be wiser to voice more nuanced opinions, but doesn’t have the wisdom that should invest great power. In some sense I see him as the weak stooge of darker more intelligent and even evil powers who have captured him to do their wicked work for them. Boris is, I think, a simulacrum of Trump: a useful idiot.

Racism is not a black-and-white affair: like all ideologies it has its counterpart in the denial of ethnic and cultural differences and in cultural relativism. Most of us, I think, neither hold nor express very negative views of other races, but we do tend to have and often to conceal from others our natural feelings of otherness, of discomfort, or anxiety around others, their looks, perhaps their subtle odour, their comportment, their personal habits, their language and gestures.

I think these feelings and the thoughts and ideas that accompany them are not fixed, but fluctuate, can be influenced, and are susceptible to change.

It’s a pity this capacity to change views and to modify feelings is not better acknowledged, and mobilised by our leaders. If the nettle were firmly grasped, people like Trump would not come to power, to threaten our peace, and poison our hope of happiness together.

1 Like

I will never subscribe to the thought that if a woman shows an ankle and it is seen that it will invite lustful thoughts in men and it is all the fault of the woman!
Any religion or culture or whatever that denegrates women is appalling and I will shout out loud against it and if that upsets some people, too bad.

Boris has made the right noises, but hasn’t really said whether he feels the comments were racist…

Mr Johnson said: "If you are the leader of a great, multi-racial, multi-cultural society, you simply cannot use that kind of language about sending people back to where they came from.

“That went out decades and decades ago and thank heavens for that.”

Actually, for Boris, it was a reasonably measured response.

I’m unsure intellectually about why birds of any feather (or most mammals) enhance their attractiveness to others of the same species, but I do lend credence to the idea that they do so to attract a mate; and in the ‘knowledge’ that it ‘works’. It’s a powerful instinct, a biological imperative, is it not?

I’m open to discussion about whether they dress nicely because they like to feel nice in their finery. But I’m inclined again to think that the reason they may feel nice (if they do) is because they also know it increases their appeal to a prospective mate.

Maybe modesty forbids them from acknowledging that as a biological given. I don’t know, it’s just an opinion.

It would be nice to think that, as an intellectual species that has built civilised societies, we could rise above biology once in a while.

Of course, but it should also be reasonable to acknowledge that men are attracted by attractive women, and the more attractive women make themselves the more attention they will attract.

Giving attention to an attractive woman or the features she has consciously displayed so as to enhance their attractiveness does not necessarily give rise to an irresistible lust to mate. But female attractiveness will elicit a response in most men, even before they elaborate it with their thoughts, and a woman will notice that response, instinctually and instantaneously.

Civilised and conditioned actors will normally do the necessary to inhibit the response, but that initial response is normal and men should not be blamed for it. Nor should women be blamed for reacting negatively to unwanted attention.

I’m just trying to steer the debate away from dogged blaming and shaming; and western culture and civilisation glorifies and monetises the arousal of lust through advertising in all its salacious forms. Not many complaints about that, and many women revel in it, and pour their treasure into its coffers, or make huge fortunes by promoting it.

Trump is gearing up for the next Presidential Election .
Last time it was Hilary Clinton he used as a focus for his hatred, but as she was not universally popular even within the Democratic Party that made it easier.
This time he has targeted young women of differing ethnicity as a focus of his hatred and storing up division in an attempt to get re-elected.
That didn’t work in the last mid term election as many Republicans found his attitude to race so obnoxious that they either stayed away or even voted against him.
He should be very careful of following this path.

1 Like

What has this got to do with women who are forced to cover themselves from head to toe and suffer from lack of vitamin D because of the attitude of men?

Nothing at all. Any link to religious extremism is a link manufactured by you, Jane, I think. :thinking:

Your sweeping suggestion that ‘females’ are dressing to attract men is totally out of date, plus many women have no choice about how they dress.


Jane, I didn’t refer to women as “females”, I used female as an adjectival qualifier of attractiveness.

You are again reverting to spite in your responses to me, something of a tendency to “sweep” that I and perhaps others have remarked about your pugnacious style.

While I can’t quite put my finger on why, I must admit that I find that pugnacity rather attractive, but its attraction is well under control at this end of the conversation :laughing::face_with_hand_over_mouth::zipper_mouth_face:

And I hasten (perhaps redundantly, but for the avoidance of all doubt) to confirm that it’s the attribute of pugnacity that I find attractive, nothing at all, I repeat, more “sweeping” should be inferred.

so eloquently put Peter…

You’re very kind as ever, @graham.

I do so hope that @Jane_Williamson may be as mellow as you!