The right goes to war against "the woke"

[Nosi]

Originally Posted by arayder

If you watch Klingenstein's YouTubes* you can see that he loves Trump, backs up the stolen election claim and piles on a ton of Trumpian vitriol.

He calls progressives "woke communists" and says their goal and that of the Democratic Party is to destroy America. He touches all the anti-woke, hate-the-Dems bases. He says the "woke" want white men to feel bad about themselves (amateur psychologists might ask him what it is he feels bad about?).

The guy's just over the top!

Yes, but the primary "Brain" of the Q Train is Putin, and that is one dangerous .

[Nosi]

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

Don't count on them having any brain cells.

Your average Q Tard has exactly TWO brain cells, each fighting the other for legroom in the skull.

[grunion]

Originally Posted by Donal

...ok...? There doesn't seem to be anything new here. It's the same nonsense the uncle you try to avoid at family events keeps posting on Facebook. Who is the author and why do we care he specifically is posting this?

I suspect that someone is trying to increase page views by posting links here to inconsequential garbage.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Nosi

Actually, this problem goes a lot further and darker than "liberals are commies". The Q Republicans believe that certain groups of people need to be rounded up into camps and done away with, AKA Auschwitz. Those groups, in the more extreme Q Republican's minds, include anyone not Cis and male, although females have a use as breeding livestock.

Wir müssen die <Juden> ausrotten!

[TheGoldcountry]

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry

In 1865, the Union won the Civil War, and America was finally perfect.

Originally Posted by autumn1971

The vast majority of republicans in the US disagree with both portions of that sentence, and for contradictory reasons.

The US merely illegally subjugated the true hero’s of America.
Also, the US winning has caused all the problems we have now with uppity minorities wanting rights.

Originally Posted by Nosi

Hardly. Jim Crow was formed after the Civil War. We still have race relations problems, and what's going on now with the Q Tards is reactive largely to Obama's presidency that was groundbreaking.

I get that sarcasm is tough on the Internet, but I can't believe you took it that way.

I was mocking the type of Republican autumn was referring to. I know many people (and unfortunately a nephew) who will say "How can there still be racism? Lincoln freed the slaves! They have the right to vote!" yet also think the Civil War was about "states' rights" and the Federal Govt. overstepped it's bounds in the 60's by enforcing civil rights.

Basically, there's no racism, and the government is bad for trying to get rid of this non-existent problem. Republicans should get credit for ending slavery, but the South wasn't racist and just wanted freedom.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry

I get that sarcasm is tough on the Internet, but I can't believe you took it that way.

I was mocking the type of Republican autumn was referring to. I know many people (and unfortunately a nephew) who will say "How can there still be racism? Lincoln freed the slaves! They have the right to vote!" yet also think the Civil War was about "states' rights" and the Federal Govt. overstepped it's bounds in the 60's by enforcing civil rights.

Basically, there's no racism, and the government is bad for trying to get rid of this non-existent problem. Republicans should get credit for ending slavery, but the South wasn't racist and just wanted freedom.

I thought your sarcasm was very evident.

But, I disagree that "Republicans should get credit for ending slavery" because the Republicans of Lincoln's time were anything but the Republicans of today and haven't been for several decades. The ideological switch between Dems and the GOP has been the subject of several books and articles by historians.

[TheGoldcountry]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I thought your sarcasm was very evident.

But, I disagree that "Republicans should get credit for ending slavery" because the Republicans of Lincoln's time were anything but the Republicans of today and haven't been for several decades. The ideological switch between Dems and the GOP has been the subject of several books and articles by historians.

Again, that was me pointing out the cognitive dissonance of the right-wingers where I am.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry

Again, that was me pointing out the cognitive dissonance of the right-wingers where I am.

After rereading your post, I see that.

[mgidm86]

Being "Anti-woke" gives one the ability to be openly racist and blame it on someone else.

Look at how many people are anti-woke without caring what woke even means? They jump at the chance to join, they just needed a slogan to hide behind.

[Donal]

I didn't want to parade through my town screaming racist and antisemitic slogans and then throw my full support behind a far-right strongman, the woke left made me do it because of pronouns.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Donal

I didn't want to parade through my town screaming racist and antisemitic slogans and then throw my full support behind a far-right strongman, the woke left made me do it because of pronouns.

And like I've said many times that is always their narrative. "I have no choice but to be evil because the Left is a little annoying and dramatic."

It's always some variation on "Sure I totally was going to be a person with even minimal base level human decency who wasn't openly bigoted and proud of it I totally was you have to believe me... but then I saw a Fox News story about how some liberal said the M&M Mascots couldn't give me a boner anymore so I have no choice but to be a Nazi."

People who become conservatives because they are annoyed at liberals are cowards. Liberals annoy other liberals 10 times before breakfast, get over it.

[Dani]

From the distance of someone from Spain, the article (or, more precisely, the excerpt) smelled funny.

No shades of grey allowed.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

And like I've said many times that is always their narrative. "I have no choice but to be evil because the Left is a little annoying and dramatic."

Nope, its, I have a choice between an ******* and an ******* who thinks I'm evil.

Quote:

It's always some variation on "Sure I totally was going to be a person with even minimal base level human decency who wasn't openly bigoted and proud of it I totally was you have to believe me... but then I saw a Fox News story about how some liberal said the M&M Mascots couldn't give me a boner anymore so I have no choice but to be a Nazi."

People who become conservatives because they are annoyed at liberals are cowards. Liberals annoy other liberals 10 times before breakfast, get over it.

No, its generally some version of I generally vote for republicans and over the last 40 years the dems have called every last one of them a racist, fascist, or NAZI. So, why should I believe them now.

People become conservatives or progressives for all sorts of reason that we aren't generally aware of. Often its peer pressure over the first 20 or so years of our lives.

So, at 26 some guy is a conservative. Who's he going to vote for? The candidate that he kind of agrees with but takes things too far or teh guy he mostly disagrees with but calls him evil. He's got a choice between someone that might put him in a camp and someone that absolutely will put him in a camp. An exageration for rhetorical effect but you are literally cally them evil. Not even dumb, ignorant, misguided, whatever, evil. [/quote]
This ignores reality. If you want to continue pushing folks away from Dems and the Left keep it up.

The framing is also straight up BS. The choice isn't between mildly annoying progressives and NAZIs. Reasonable people know that. It also doesn't explain the millions of people that seem to have voted for both Obama and Trump.

Originally Posted by Dani

From the distance of someone from Spain, the article (or, more precisely, the excerpt) smelled funny.

No shades of grey allowed.

Which as you can see from this thread, is the problem with modern progressives. Its as though the left wing of your socialist party had been calling anyone who wasn't a socialist a falangist for 40 years and complained that conservatives were voting for Vox becasue they were mildly annoyed by socialists.

Also, this is a skeptics forum so everyone here should understand how otherwise reasonable and decent people ended up voting for and supporting Trump.
A. Most people don't actually pay close attention to politics.
B. Dems and there allies have called every republican a racist for the last 40 years. If you don't pay attention prior to few weeks prior to the election, you're not going to bother figuring out if any of those accusation have merit, they mostly don't, so why would they now.
C. Trump was running agasint a dozen otherwise indistinquishable bog standard republicans. He got the nomination with something like 40% of the primary vote. The percentage was much lower in early primaries than later which typical. As a candidate pulls ahead.
D. The only people republicans voters hate more than dems is republican politicians.
E. Once he had the nominations, there are a number of cognitive biases that caused republicans to line up behind trump and changed tepid support to adamant support.

Which all gets distilled to republicans evil. Which as messaging, is ****. If you want someone to not be evil, constantly calling them evil isn't going to help, and seriously, if you live in a country where about 40% of the population is evil, why haven't you left or started killing them.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by ahhell

Nope, its, I have a choice between an ******* and an ******* who thinks I'm evil.

No, its generally some version of I generally vote for republicans and over the last 40 years the dems have called every last one of them a racist, fascist, or NAZI. So, why should I believe them now.

People become conservatives or progressives for all sorts of reason that we aren't generally aware of. Often its peer pressure over the first 20 or so years of our lives.

So, at 26 some guy is a conservative. Who's he going to vote for? The candidate that he kind of agrees with but takes things too far or teh guy he mostly disagrees with but calls him evil. He's got a choice between someone that might put him in a camp and someone that absolutely will put him in a camp. An exageration for rhetorical effect but you are literally cally them evil. Not even dumb, ignorant, misguided, whatever, evil.
This ignores reality. If you want to continue pushing folks away from Dems and the Left keep it up.

The framing is also straight up BS. The choice isn't between mildly annoying progressives and NAZIs. Reasonable people know that. It also doesn't explain the millions of people that seem to have voted for both Obama and Trump.

Which as you can see from this thread, is the problem with modern progressives. Its as though the left wing of your socialist party had been calling anyone who wasn't a socialist a falangist for 40 years and complained that conservatives were voting for Vox becasue they were mildly annoyed by socialists.

Okay I don't even know where to start unpacking this level of "bothsideism" so I'm just going to cut to the chance.

"So what am I supposed to do? Just NOT be a conservative?

YES! You're acting like it's some kind of human right or moral imperative to be able to be wrong in politics.

[JoeMorgue]

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Okay I don't even know where to start unpacking this level of "bothsideism" so I'm just going to cut to the chance.

"So what am I supposed to do? Just NOT be a conservative?

YES! You're acting like it's some kind of human right or moral imperative to be able to be wrong in politics.

It is in fact a human right to be wrong in politics.

Again, you ignore reality. You act like just telling someone they're evil will change their mind.

You keep saying the same thing over and over again.

A. RACIST!
B. Hmm, I don't think I'm a racist.
A. RACIST!
B. Whatever, I'm out.

Then there's the assumption that folks vote for Trump becasue he's a racist, which leads me to think that you must therefore believe that people voted for Biden because he's senile old liar.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by ahhell

It is in fact a human right to be wrong in politics.

Again, you ignore reality. You act like just telling someone they're evil will change their mind.

Yeah know I've noticed something with the Right and their apologist.

Not only does insulting them not work, nor reasoning with them, nor shaming them, nor begging them... nor... well anything funnily enough.

So how DO we stop them? I figure you aren't going to have an answer.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by ahhell

A. RACIST!
B. Hmm, I don't think I'm a racist.
A. RACIST!
B. Whatever, I'm out.

Because the Right's entire routine right now is to be so horrible that accurately describing sounds bad.

Again just dismiss every valid criticism because it "sounds like an insult."

They had "We are all domestic terrorists" on the letterhead. I'm not putting words in their mouth.

[wareyin]

And we're back to simultaneously claiming that calling Republicans racist has been done so much that nobody cares about being called racist, while also complaining about the very thing we say we don't care about.

Plus there's the whole 'waaah, you called a guy who refused to rent rooms to black people racist! You're so mean and wrong for calling a racist a racist!'

[JoeMorgue]

People who storm the Capital to stop an election aren't insurgents, being racist isn't racist, a coup isn't a coup, trying to make gay marriage illegal isn't homophobic, stopping Roe V Wade isn't anti-woman, making high school girls their cycles with you isn't.... just horrible. On so forth and so on.

Again that's my point. The Right is so actively horrible that's just accurately describing them sounds like a dramatic strawman, which is why the Right is pretending like those are the biggest sins that you can ever commit.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by ahhell

The framing is also straight up BS. The choice isn't between mildly annoying progressives and NAZIs. Reasonable people know that. It also doesn't explain the millions of people that seem to have voted for both Obama and Trump.

Oh, they have an explanation for that one--racism. You see, after two consecutive times voting for Obama, the racists suddenly realized that they had been voting for a ******.

Seriously, this is the sort of stuff they have to believe in order to preserve their worldview.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Donal

It's because every news outlet thinks they are ESPN, so our entire political discourse comes down to Team A vs Team B. And like the laughably lopsided SuperBowls in the 1990s, they have to twist themselves into pretzels to convince us that both sides are equal so we will keep a rooting interest.

It's not just that, the whole of the US media, including the mainstream side, is quite right wing so, as a result, right wing politicians do tend to get an easier ride.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by wareyin

And we're back to simultaneously claiming that calling Republicans racist has been done so much that nobody cares about being called racist, while also complaining about the very thing we say we don't care about.

Plus there's the whole 'waaah, you called a guy who refused to rent rooms to black people racist! You're so mean and wrong for calling a racist a racist!'

Disagreeing with you doesn't mean someone is a racist, unless its literally whether one race is worse than another. Keeping acting like it and the dems will keep losing elections.

One of the many ways in which Progressives are wrong, acting like an explanation is a moral position. I'm not defending republicans for voting for Trump, I'm explaining it.

Now I'll have to figure out why progressives see everything as a moral question and lack any ability to see nuance. Maybe if I can do that I can better frame my arguments to actually convince them to change their tactics.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by ahhell

Disagreeing with you doesn't mean someone is a racist, unless its literally whether one race is worse than another. Keeping acting like it and the dems will keep losing elections.

You still think we called Trump a racist because we disagreed with him, and not because he literally refused to rent to black people, made public statements about not wanting black people to count money in his casinos, called for the death penalty for black teenagers who had already been found innocent in court, etc?

Exactly how much actual racist **** will you continue to ignore to be able to claim your side is only called racist because we disagree with them?

eta: I forgot to comment on the "dems will keep losing elections" claim. Yeah, the Reps are so damn popular that they've lost the popular vote 7 out of the last 8 Presidential elections.

[JoeMorgue]

"Every actual bad quality I have is just a meaningless insult the other side uses" is a good mentality to have if you never want to get any better or deal with anything you do wrong.

[autumn1971]

Originally Posted by ahhell

It is in fact a human right to be wrong in politics.

Again, you ignore reality. You act like just telling someone they're evil will change their mind.

You keep saying the same thing over and over again.

A. RACIST!
B. Hmm, I don't think I'm a racist.
A. RACIST!
B. Whatever, I'm out.

Then there's the assumption that folks vote for Trump becasue he's a racist, which leads me to think that you must therefore believe that people voted for Biden because he's senile old liar.

If you don’t want to be called names you have a choice to vote for candidates that don’t absolutely embody those names.

Non-fascists exist in your party (which has its most prominent spokespersons out-loud saying that any election that they don’t win should be met with violence) and they are the majority of the democrats.

You are proving the cartoon accurate.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by wareyin

You still think we called Trump a racist because we disagreed with him, and not because he literally refused to rent to black people, made public statements about not wanting black people to count money in his casinos, called for the death penalty for black teenagers who had already been found innocent in court, etc?

Exactly how much actual racist **** will you continue to ignore to be able to claim your side is only called racist because we disagree with them?

No, I think you keep calling every republican a racist regardless of who they vote for or what they think or do and act like the old lady that still uses colored as though she is effectively a Klansman.

Its gotten to absurdity. The SF school board claimed they were recalled due to white supremacy despite the fact that effort was led by immigrants and and that you can count the number of republicans in SF on one hand.

Stacy Abrams lost her election due to white supremacy.

Larry Elder is the Black face of white supremacy.

An old asian guy kills some other asian guys, you guessed it, white supremacy.

If your answer to every question is the same thing, you might be a hammer.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

And like I've said many times that is always their narrative. "I have no choice but to be evil because the Left is a little annoying and dramatic."

It's always some variation on "Sure I totally was going to be a person with even minimal base level human decency who wasn't openly bigoted and proud of it I totally was you have to believe me... but then I saw a Fox News story about how some liberal said the M&M Mascots couldn't give me a boner anymore so I have no choice but to be a Nazi."

The same people who cry about personal responsibility.

Quote:

People who become conservatives because they are annoyed at liberals are cowards. Liberals annoy other liberals 10 times before breakfast, get over it.

How weak do your principles have to be for you to completely reverse everything you claimed to believe because someone who supports the same things annoyed you or yelled at you? Those people just chose a team because they thought it would make them cool or something.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by ahhell

No, I think you keep calling every republican a racist regardless of who they vote for or what they think or do and act like the old lady that still uses colored as though she is effectively a Klansman.

I notice I haven't gotten an answer as to how we should act towards them.

Insulting (or in the case accurately describing them but whatever) doesn't work. Reasoning with them sure as hell doesn't. They have no shame so shaming them doesn't.

So again I ask... what do we do?

You won't give me an answer because I feel like your answer is "Let them do whatever they want."

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by ahhell

No, I think you keep calling every republican a racist regardless of who they vote for or what they think or do and act like the old lady that still uses colored as though she is effectively a Klansman.

As I said, you are ignoring the actual racist actions of the candidates accused of racism in order to clutch your pearls about the term you claim means nothing.

Originally Posted by ahhell

Its gotten to absurdity. The SF school board claimed they were recalled due to white supremacy despite the fact that effort was led by immigrants and and that you can count the number of republicans in SF on one hand.

Stacy Abrams lost her election due to white supremacy.

Larry Elder is the Black face of white supremacy.

An old asian guy kills some other asian guys, you guessed it, white supremacy.

If your answer to every question is the same thing, you might be a hammer.

I'm quite familiar with Brian Kemp literally saying in his commercials that he was going to drive around Georgia and kidnap illegal Mexicans in his truck during that campaign, so if the rest of your vague examples are as BS as your Stacy Abrams one, you're talking out your ass.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by autumn1971

If you don’t want to be called names you have a choice to vote for candidates that don’t absolutely embody those names.

Non-fascists exist in your party (which has its most prominent spokespersons out-loud saying that any election that they don’t win should be met with violence) and they are the majority of the democrats.

You are proving the cartoon accurate.

Nope, unless Mitt Romney absolutely embodies racism, or Larry Elder, either bush?

The guys that appointed multiple African Americans to positions of high authority, absolutely embodied racism.

[ahhell]

Ok, so 40% of Americans are racist and evil, what's your plan?

[autumn1971]

Originally Posted by ahhell

Ok, so 40% of Americans are racist and evil, what's your plan?

Elect people who aren’t actively subverting their Constitution and prosecute lawbreakers even if they are rich old white men.
It’s not ******* difficult.
You can elect democrats who are much more fiscally conservative than any Republican. The only downside is a little more tolerance at the government level for people whose behavior doesn’t affect you at all.

Pretty ******* simple

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by ahhell

Nope, unless Mitt Romney absolutely embodies racism, or Larry Elder, either bush?

The guys that appointed multiple African Americans to positions of high authority, absolutely embodied racism.

Just to be clear, here: You're actually claiming that hiring a black guy proves one isn't racist?

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by ahhell

Ok, so 40% of Americans are racist and evil, what's your plan?

No racism and evilness isn't a dealbreaker for ~40% of Americans.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Just to be clear, here: You're actually claiming that hiring a black guy proves one isn't racist?

To be clear, you're claiming that apointing someone to the be the secretary of state is "hiring a black man".

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

No racism and evilness isn't a dealbreaker for ~40% of Americans.

So, what's your plan for them?

You think they don't have a right to be wrong.
You think the way to be correct is to not be conservatives.
So, what will you do with them if you were elected?

I think there's some pretty obvious conclusions that would have me voting for Trump if my choice were you or Trump.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by ahhell

To be clear, you're claiming that apointing someone to the be the secretary of state is "hiring a black man".

If that person is black, yes. That's literally hiring a black man. Which, despite your ostrich head in the sand routine, does not prove someone isn't racist. Racist people can and do hire black people.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by ahhell

It is in fact a human right to be wrong in politics.

Again, you ignore reality. You act like just telling someone they're evil will change their mind.

You keep saying the same thing over and over again.

A. RACIST!
B. Hmm, I don't think I'm a racist.
A. RACIST!
B. Whatever, I'm out.

Then there's the assumption that folks vote for Trump becasue he's a racist, which leads me to think that you must therefore believe that people voted for Biden because he's senile old liar.

No it's:
Right winger: *says something deeply offensive and racist*
Normal person with morals: Stop saying that rubbish, it is deeply offensive and racist.
RW: I'm not racist, I have a black friend, Marquisse.
NP: Last time we met you abused him for five minutes solid.
RW: He likes the rough and tumble. Anyway he should go back to his own kind in Africa and stop stealing my women and jobs.
NP: Oh, FFS, Marquisse's ancestors came over in 1700 odd, your family in only the thirties, he's more native tha... Do you know what? I'm sick of arguing with you, go wallow in your filth I'm done, you racist.

[autumn1971]

Originally Posted by ahhell

To be clear, you're claiming that apointing someone to the be the secretary of state is "hiring a black man".



So, what's your plan for them?

You think they don't have a right to be wrong.
You think the way to be correct is to not be conservatives.
So, what will you do with them if you were elected?

I think there's some pretty obvious conclusions that would have me voting for Trump if my choice were you or Trump.

Interesting. What does conservative mean to you?
Fiscal conservative? That’s democrats.
Social conservative? That’s thirty or forty percent of democrats

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by autumn1971

If you don’t want to be called names you have a choice to vote for candidates that don’t absolutely embody those names.

Non-fascists exist in your party (which has its most prominent spokespersons out-loud saying that any election that they don’t win should be met with violence) and they are the majority of the democrats.

You are proving the cartoon accurate.

Originally Posted by ahhell

Nope, unless Mitt Romney absolutely embodies racism, or Larry Elder, either bush?

The guys that appointed multiple African Americans to positions of high authority, absolutely embodied racism.

Originally Posted by wareyin

Just to be clear, here: You're actually claiming that hiring a black guy proves one isn't racist?

Originally Posted by wareyin

If that person is black, yes. That's literally hiring a black man. Which, despite your ostrich head in the sand routine, does not prove someone isn't racist. Racist people can and do hire black people.

For context.

I'm told that if Reps don't elect people that embody racism, then folks will stop calling them racist.
I suggest that appointing someone who is Black to one of the most powerful positions in the country implies you don't embody racism and that didn't stop lefties from calling them racists.
You respond with, hiring a black man doesn't mean you aren't racist.

I can't read the whole article, pay wall, but your evidence seems to that Jerry Jones was a racist when he was 14.

This illustrates a lot actually.

A. All forms of racism are equally bad. Voting for a guy who is racist despite no clear evidence other than his being a Republican is the same as voting for an obvious racist.
B. There is no way to demonstrate you aren't a racist.
C. There is no redemption for former racists.

And you guys can't figure out why they won't vote for Dems.