Of course, when Stephen Miller talks about "the forces of darkness", he means "anyone with darker skin than me". Because he's so racist that if you punched him in the face, he'd get a white eye.
Charlie Kirk Assassinated
- Thread starter thebobmaster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes, this is how the Democratic Party operates.
In practice, nearly all parties across the globe carefully manage who represents them, although the process varies by party. The Democratic party establishment know what they want from a candidate before anyone signs up, and whilst they're prepared to leave a certain amount to public opinion, no-one outside their criteria is supposed to be elected. They then arrange the rules and pull strings to shut out undesirables like Sanders.
It's not that Sanders wasn't electable (he appears to have been a credible candidate by polls), it's that the Democratic establishment hate him. He would scare a load of their donors and powerbrokers, and if he won would likely do so through plenty of voters different from the Democratic establishment. That would rock the establishment's boat, their power networks and vested interests.
Thankfully, Erika Kirk has helped explain where women are conservative world:
So the answer seems to be that they are the home help, albeit deserving more respect than the butler and maid.
...eh, as much as any DNC preferred candidate does, I guess. I mean being the beneficiary rather than the target of any primary ratfucking certainly doesn't hurt.
I've said it before and will say it again, for better or worse, the GOP at least appears to run generally honest primaries and stand by the results, for better or worse. The DNC decides who they want to run, and then do whatever they need to to manufacture consent in the primary.
Rude, I thought we weren't meant to be judging people on their appearances now.
But why should I not look back to where I came from?
So it wasn't a Gryoper who killed Charlie Kirk?
Because it's equally insane ramblings that brought us the original claim it was a far right group who killed him for not being far right enough......
So because ABC chose to cancel Jimmy Kimmel's show some-one deemed to have been politically motivated decided to shoot up an ABC building
Yes, and the USA is paying the cost for the Republican Party's lack of willingness to manage their selection process. I don't think a lot of that damage is reparable.
The West in particular being subjected to it all the whole time -
Gee I wonder who’s been benefiting from it (pretty sure it’s not any of us).
I suppose they're worried about people chiseling holes in the necks of the statues.
And my point is that defanging the primary means of doing this; playing identity politics and not focusing on an economic message, is the best hope we have of getting someone good during the primaries. Every time someone mentions anything about identity groups we have to refocus back on economic policy and not be distracted by the mention of race or gender or other such identity because the more marginalized you are the more you stand to gain by better economic policy. Just as how we judge a policy as racist based on its outcomes and not its stated intentions, so can we judge one as anti-racist by the benefits that come out of it, and a policy doesn’t need to champion for example antiracism if that rubs some people the wrong way, as long as it is good for poor people it will by default benefit black people more no matter what so just like we only care about the outcomes when calling policies bigoted so should we when we look at ones that fight bigotry. It’s only the outcomes that matter, not the pandering marketing.
It's really important to understand how humans can think about and treat other people.
A person can form good relationships and strong personal bonds with people from races that they look down on. For instance, in slavery era USA, or in the British Empire in far-flung colonies, white people had black or Asian people as acquaintances, colleagues, servants or slaves, and in many cases held them in great affection and personal respect. They could have non-white servants that they trusted so much that they would leave their own children in the servant's care. And yet at the same time these white people absolutely believed in their fundamental superiority and right to rule over other races. Thus when someone says "X isn't a racist because X treated me okay", it simply does not mean X wasn't racist.
So it is that a white guy can get on great with a few black pals, whilst at the same time thinking that non-whites are inferior, and the USA is a fundamentally white country, for whites should be ruled by whites, that must resist the immigration of other races because that will in some way pollute the USA's sanctity. We should have no problem in recognising that vision of America as fundamentally racist, and a person who holds it as a racist. Some black guy popping up and saying "But he was good to me" just doesn't change that.
Sure dude. I just can't really forget all those threads where you said black people deserved to get shot by cops or vigilantes, even digging your feet in on cases where it's plain the black guy didn't do much wrong. I get what you mean with "antiracism... that rubs people the wrong way", but that doesn't absolve people who say problematic things of reflecting, acknowledging, learning and hell, maybe even sometimes apologising.
He says before display a total lack of understanding of the person he's talking about.
I've read enough about how he thought black women whose accomplishments far outweigh his own lacked "processing power" and stole "a white man's slot". He openly argued the "Great Replacement" theory as a deliberate strategy to attack rural America. As noted elsewhere, his conception of family as expressed by his own wife clearly set women as inferior.
Fuck that shit.
People who aren't bigots just don't come out with this shit in the first place. And even worse, when he said a lot of this stuff, he was absolutely playing on and reinforcing other people's bigotry. Even if it was carelessness it doesn't really matter, and that grating Christian hypocrisy of trite platitudes about respect, love and stuff whilst he's demeaning others.
They don't have a lack of willingness to manage their selection process. They have a lack of need. Trump is not some kind of aberration from an otherwise 'reasonable' Republican Party, he's the logical result of the politics many Republicans have been deliberately trying to create for decades.
The DNC has to manage their selection process because their target demographics don't really want what they are selling and, given the chance, would ruin the careers of a lot of "very important people".
You've almost certainly haven't read enough, cause you don't understand what he was saying in the one statement you're referencing. He didn't pick those women arbitrarily, he listed specifically people who had shortly prior made comments about how their success was a product of affirmative action and/or DEI.
"If we would have said three weeks ago [...] that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative-action picks, we would have been called racist. But now they're comin' out and they're saying it for us!"
To which, he laughingly continues:
"Yeah, we know. You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person's slot to go be taken somewhat seriously. "
That's not his worldview that black women in general or even any of those specific people (well, maybe Joy Reid) is unintelligent or incapable. The point is that from his view of DEI, which he repeatedly insisted stands for "didn't earn it", to call yourself a DEI hire is to diminish yourself, to say of yourself that you did not get your position based on merit.
No, Charlie Kirk did not think non-whites were inferior. He laughed at something that from his perspective was a self-own by prominent people. It was exactly The Rogue Wolf's schtick of putting the worst possible interpretation of someone else's words in their mouth.
You are making a really simple and basic error.
How we talk about things influences how people think. Kirk could have discussed affirmative action in an interesting and less demeaning way. But he didn't. When Charlie Kirk took that line and decided to call black women stupid and unqualified, he played straight into the mindset of every bigot out there, and he thought it was hilarious. He did the work of racists, and it's fine with him, because he got his cheap gotcha. You're just trying to pretend there aren't people who think that way... but that's just not true.
It's the same with many dogwhistles. They're not saying it... and yet they totally are. It's specifically designed just so people get the meaning, and then apologists like you can come along later with the utterly ridiculous idea that your laborious fabrication is the only way anyone can interpret it. This is obviously stupid, because we all know that everyone who reads or hears the same stuff somehow manages to come out with a different idea about it. So people like you are wasting everyone's time claiming that there's only one true interpretation to something someone said. Then, we also know that there are people out there good at using this semantic uncertainty to manipulate - and indeed, this is exactly the sort of tactic developed by politicians, debaters like Kirk.
And then there's your other standard tactic at play, which is pretend everything exists in isolation so no-one looks at the big picture. It's so tiring.
But guess what, everything is interrelated. I repeat: Kirk promoted the Great Replacement theory, and that is a racist conspiracy. He opposed the Civil Rights Act. He really had a thing about black men "prowling" (I think that was the word) and trying to rape women because he kept going on and on about it. All of that racist and race-baiting applies context to everything else. He's either racist or he's appealing to racists, and the latter is good enough to call him a racist anyway. He played to a racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic galleryt. He regularly said stuff to demean, disrespect, and belittle. Even the little stuff. (Look no further than this, recently posted in this forum: "cockroaches". Classy - how's that for respect for one's fellow humankind, and that's absolutely part of who he was.)
So yeah, he didn't have to do this, he could have been more thoughtful, respectful, but he wasn't. And when you look at all the stuff he said and did again and again, no remorse, no attempt to change... he was a bigot, and it worked for him.
So, let's take your view that he was referring exclusively to those people and not using them as examples of a general notion he's selling. Why then would the people they "stole" their positions from necessarily be white?
yeh yeh and I've seen you call Jeffery Epstein and good friend who you can't wait to go spend time on his island over the summer with...... anyone can make baseless claims to deflect from having to face the actual facts and points of the argument.
Dreiko is right.
Playing identity politics is part of the problem.
Trump isn't the result of a lax selection process.
It's the result of years of attempts to mock and shame people into doing certain things or acting certain ways while insulting the self worth of groups and dismissing them as bad, worthless or pathetic.
"Oh by no-one has done that Dwarven you're delusional Dwarven"
Yeh well this is an upcoming cartoon show.
The evil white maleins............. subtle/s