Democrats Move to Ensure No More AOCs

Ziggurat said:
That's the claim, but it's pretty weak. What's the most right-wing thing Trump has done? Probably his stance on immigration. Yet he's not that far to the right of where Bill Clinton was on the issue. The party that has moved dramatically is the Democrats, to the left. And AOC is a prime example of that. Democrats used to have to at least pretend to oppose illegal immigration.
Click to expand...

That's not entirely wrong. Republicans have miserable, racist, misogynist ***** for a long time now. Democrats are now trying to pull everything back to where it used to be and even closer to where it should be. It's nice to see we agree on things.

Ziggurat said:
The qualities which supposedly make Trump uniquely unsuited don't really have much to do with how right wing he is.
Click to expand...

Again, you nailed it! He's just a miserable piece of **** all of the time. He lies constantly (what are we at now? Over 11,000 lies since taking office), has extreme views on immigration, insults people like a ******* child, is extremely uneducated, takes credit for everything positive and nothing negative, and overall just sucks at being a human.

You're right, there's nothing specifically right wing about it. He's just a piece of ****. What makes it right wing is the people on the right defending and even encouraging this ****** up behavior while making every excuse for him imaginable.

The ****** up part is that no one forced the GOP to jump up and defend this behavior. They are doing it themselves, voluntarily.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
All this benefit of the doubt has never been afforded to any Democrat, at least as far as I am aware off.
Click to expand...
Enh. I gave the benefit of the doubt to that congresswoman who supposedly said that people should be jailed for criticizing the government on social media.

But to me this isn't so much a "benefit of the doubt" question as it is a basic issue of skepticism and epistemology.

It's also going to be hard to make a good comparison, since Democrats are generally not going to say something like "immigrants who complain should go back where they came from".

---

One could present some hypotheticals, but I think it's fair to assume that everyone invested in this thread would simply address the hypothetical in the way that best supports their position here.

For example, if Joe Biden were to say something like "if Omar doesn't like America, she's welcome to go back to Somalia", you'd probably have a deep and vicious split between Bidenbros and the Warren Tribe, about whether it was racist. And you'd probably have a lot of conservatives saying it's not racist. I mean, *I'd* say it's not racist, and for the same reason I'm saying it's not racist here: Because it's predicated on her opinions, not on her race. Even if Biden were wrong about her opinions, it still wouldn't be racist.

It's probably not fair for me to ask you to take my claim here at face value. I hope you will do so anyway, though.
 
Completely agree that Trump is unqualified and unsuited by temperament to be President regardless of his polices.

And Trump is not really right-wing, since he makes policies according to what he thinks will get him personal profit or re-elected.
His stance on Immigration is pure populism he obviously doesn't believe in, given the number or illegal migrant workers he employs.
His foreign policy is solely based on personal chemistry with foreign leaders without any thought for the actual issues.
His tax and regulation stance is purely based on personal profiteering, either for him or members of his cabinet or his donors.
And his hate of the press is entirely based on feeling rejected and underappreciated for his achievement of having gotten elected.
 
It's not racist by definition, but "go back to your country" is the conventional line racists tend to throw at people who don't look like them, since it'd be grossly racist to go beyond that.
 
Shalamar said:
It confirms my thesis of 'It's only bad if a Democrat/liberal/porg/socialist' does it.
Click to expand...
There's a countervailing thesis that 'if a Republican does it, it must be bad'. That's what I think is going on here.

I mean, think about it. Omar is not a man. She's not white. She's not Christian. But Trump isn't attacking her on the basis of her race or her gender. He's attacking her on the basis of her ideas.

This is exactly the kind of equality that women are entitled to. This is exactly the equality that women have been demanding, that they have been fighting for generations to achieve. And it's exactly the kind of equality that Trump recognizes in his attack on Omar.

But because she's brown, you throw all that out, and assume it must be racism.
 
theprestige said:
But because she's brown, you throw all that out, and assume it must be racism.
Click to expand...

I don't know about the person you quoted, but I think it's racist because he's literally never told another white person that's expressed their "ideas" to go back to their country. He only said that to 4 darker skinned individuals.

Again, body of work.
 
plague311 said:
Why the **** do conservatives always require each incident to be taken completely and entirely in it's own context?
Click to expand...

I was about to post something to that effect but there's no point: you're not going to convince them to see the forest and stop focusing on the question of whether each tree constitutes enough trees to make a forest, and the reason is that they are doing this deliberately. There's nothing to realise. They know.
 
plague311 said:
Why the **** do conservatives always require each incident to be taken completely and entirely in it's own context? That's not how it works. There is a body of work to each and every poster, politician, and person. The benefit of the doubt has sailed so long ago that it's about to come back around on the horizon.
Click to expand...

It seems like every time we examine a specific incident in its own context, it's at odds with the appeal to "body of work".
 
theprestige said:
I mean, think about it. Omar is not a man. She's not white. She's not Christian. But Trump isn't attacking her on the basis of her race or her gender. He's attacking her on the basis of her ideas.
Click to expand...

Trump has voiced his displeasure over ideas from basically everyone not him, including Republicans, actors, TV pundits, foreign diplomats etc. etc.
He has called many people traitors.
He never told them to go back to their country.


So by your standard, Trump did something different because he perceived Omar and the rest of the Squad as not all American.
 
There's more to the attack on Omar than just the "go back" line. There's a whole list of regressive stereotypes being put forth.

Nothing about the claims she married her brother or secretly supports *insert terrorist group here* is about her "ideas."

Nor does telling her to go back where she came from.
Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Great Zaganza said:
I am talking about when racists words and racist actions are allowed to be considered racists.
Click to expand...
You're begging the question that these words and actions are racist. I'm calling on you to set aside the fallacy and actually argue the claim.

It seems by your requirements that this can never happen as long as one person disagrees.
Click to expand...
My requirement is that for an attack to be racist, it has to be predicated on the race of the subject, not the ideas of the subject.

In this case, we have an attack clearly predicated on the ideas of the subject, but you keep insisting that it's actually predicated on her race. I disagree with your position because it does not meet my requirement for having that position.

A popular refrain around here is that if libertarians hate America so much, they should just go to Somalia*.

Trump is making the same attack here, and for broadly the same reasons. But because Omar is brown, you assume it must be racism. And you lash out at anyone who questions that assumption.

---
*Implicit in that is that Somalia is a ******** country, but somehow nobody worries about racism in that context.
 
theprestige said:
It seems like every time we examine a specific incident in its own context, it's at odds with the appeal to "body of work".
Click to expand...

Care to expand on that? Trump's body of work strongly indicates he's a racist. The only explanation for you saying this that I can come up with is you don't think the things he says are racist (the Mexican comment, taking forever to disavow Duke, his comments about the judge, this situation, etc.). Which is totally and completely up to you. I certainly don't care, but don't expect others to put the blinders on too.
 
Venom said:
It's not racist by definition, but "go back to your country" is the conventional line racists tend to throw at people who don't look like them, since it'd be grossly racist to go beyond that.
Click to expand...

It's also the conventional line hosts tend to throw at guests in any situation where the guests complain a lot and have the option of going home, regardless of race.

I'm pretty sure there's a rhetorical term of art for the fallacy of saying "all X do Y, therefore all Z who do Y are also X".
 
theprestige said:
Trump is making the same attack here, and for broadly the same reasons. But because Omar is brown, you assume it must be racism. And you lash out at anyone who questions that assumption.
Click to expand...

No, he's not making that same attack and you're being disingenuous at best. If you can find one other case of Trump telling someone who disagrees with him, ideologically, and he told them to "go back and fix" their country. Then by all means present your evidence here that this is standard operating procedure. You've failed to do that at all. You just keep bleating out the same line.
 
plague311 said:
Care to expand on that? Trump's body of work strongly indicates he's a racist.
Click to expand...

The body of work that was being appealed to was theprestige's body of work, in order to claim that he was being dishonest and therefore uncivil. Is it your claim that theprestige is racist, based on his body of work?
 
theprestige said:
It's also the conventional line hosts tend to throw at guests in any situation where the guests complain a lot and have the option of going home, regardless of race.
Click to expand...

They ******* are home dood. Why are you missing that on purpose? There is no other 'home' for them to go back to. They are citizens of the United ******* States of ******* America.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Yeah but we're not allowed to bring that up. Every statement must exist in a vacuum.
Click to expand...

You're totally allowed to bring that up. If you think that you can make an argument to back up the claim of racism, by bringing that up, by all means go right ahead.

My whole argument today has revolved around asking you to actually back up your claim of racism with evidence, rather than simply insisting "clearly and beyond unequivocally racist" over and over again without any backing argument.

The only person not allowing you to bring that up is you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom