|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 4, 2019 12:59:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Sept 15, 2019 15:22:31 GMT -5
Good article and his point is solid. You can see this kind of ridiculousness (the wider effects of "Trump Derangement Syndrome, perhaps?) in moronic claims that liken MAGA hats to KKK hoods, calling non-white conservatives that they are white supremacists or "enabling" white supremacy, etc. Most recent example that that I've seen is AOC decrying the anti-Socialism ad that aired during the NYC broadcast of the recent debate as "racist" (not really sure how) because it had her face in it and that it was built on white supremacy, yadda yadda. Turns out, the woman who heads the group who created the ad is Cambodian. Didn't stop AOC, in all her intellectual acumen and wisdom, from continuing to tweet that this Cambodian woman was somehow a white supremacists. That kind of lunacy is endemic of the far-left. It seems that they can't engage with opposing ideas (however dumb those ideas are) on an intellectual level, and the knee-jerk response they've all been brainwashed to regurgitate is "racist!" and "white supremacy!" Just because a position is conservative (and/or stupid) or comes from a conservative does not make it racist. This branding of everyone who disagrees with them, but also conservatives as a whole, as racist white supremacists will ensure Trump's victory in 2020 and increase the number of moderates and normal Dems/liberals who shift toward the right. It's the law of the hammer and gives more evidence to "white nationalism" being to the 2019 far-left what "satanic panic" was to the conservative loons of the 80s. |
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Sept 15, 2019 19:15:53 GMT -5
Most recent example that that I've seen is AOC decrying the anti-Socialism ad that aired during the NYC broadcast of the recent debate as "racist" (not really sure how) because it had her face in it and that it was built on white supremacy, yadda yadda. Turns out, the woman who heads the group who created the ad is Cambodian. Didn't stop AOC, in all her intellectual acumen and wisdom, from continuing to tweet that this Cambodian woman was somehow a white supremacists. Did she actually say that Elizabeth Heng was a white supremacist, though? That's not the way I read AOC's comments, but maybe there were other tweets that I missed. In any case, I thought Heng's ad was itself pretty over the top. I mean, I get that a Cambodian-American political figure might want to highlight their background, but there was definitely a sort of AOC=the second coming of the Khmer Rouge sort of vibe, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Sept 15, 2019 19:53:23 GMT -5
Most recent example that that I've seen is AOC decrying the anti-Socialism ad that aired during the NYC broadcast of the recent debate as "racist" (not really sure how) because it had her face in it and that it was built on white supremacy, yadda yadda. Turns out, the woman who heads the group who created the ad is Cambodian. Didn't stop AOC, in all her intellectual acumen and wisdom, from continuing to tweet that this Cambodian woman was somehow a white supremacists. Did she actually say that Elizabeth Heng was a white supremacist, though? That's not the way I read AOC's comments, but maybe there were other tweets that I missed. In any case, I thought Heng's ad was itself pretty over the top. I mean, I get that a Cambodian-American political figure might want to highlight their background, but there was definitely a sort of AOC=the second coming of the Khmer Rouge sort of vibe, IMO. Her first tweet about it, where she knee-jerk assumes that because she's a "woman of color," and the ad was conservative, then OF COURSE it was racist: After being informed that it was, in fact, a fellow "woman of color" who placed the ad, she then doubles down on "bEcUz rAcIsT" by claiming that it was... "...a love letter to the GOP's white supremacist case." So, yes, she pretty much called Heng a white supremacist. |
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Sept 15, 2019 20:37:32 GMT -5
Did she actually say that Elizabeth Heng was a white supremacist, though? That's not the way I read AOC's comments, but maybe there were other tweets that I missed. In any case, I thought Heng's ad was itself pretty over the top. I mean, I get that a Cambodian-American political figure might want to highlight their background, but there was definitely a sort of AOC=the second coming of the Khmer Rouge sort of vibe, IMO. Her first tweet about it, where she knee-jerk assumes that because she's a "woman of color," and the ad was conservative, then OF COURSE it was racist: After being informed that it was, in fact, a fellow "woman of color" who placed the ad, she then doubles down on "bEcUz rAcIsT" by claiming that it was... "...a love letter to the GOP's white supremacist case." So, yes, she pretty much called Heng a white supremacist. Interesting. I guess I don't quite read it the same way, especially given that AOC does seem to be aware that Heng is a person of color. Don't get me wrong, there's a real implication with this kind of thing that somehow non-white conservatives are simply serving the interests of white racists, and that's ugly, IMO. I can't even count the number of times I've seen Clarence Thomas referred to as Uncle Tom, a race traitor, etc. But I've also never seen anyone refer to Thomas as literally a white supremacist, because obviously, whether it's Thomas, or Ben Carson, or Elizabeth Heng, calling a person of color a literal white supremacist doesn't make a whole lot of sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Sept 15, 2019 22:45:39 GMT -5
When she made her original tweet, she didn't know. Her tweet still calls all Republicans "racist," though. By the time she'd made the 2nd tweet, she'd been informed that Heng was, in fact, Cambodian, as it was being portrayed as appealing to non-whites. She then claimed that it wasn't actually meant to appeal to non-whites (despite Heng being non-white) and doubled-down on her accusation of racism by saying that it was "a love letter to the GOP's white supremacist case." I don't see how you don't read her claiming that all Republicans are racist (because of the ad) and then claiming that a Cambodian woman was promoting white supremacy ("a love letter to the GOP's white supremacist case") as exactly what it was; her lobbing the racism / white supremacy accusation at: 1) all Republicans, and; 2) a woman of color, all because AOC didn't like being criticized. If you can't see how those dots line up, then I gotta question whether your internet connection is working properly. Would it only be clear to you if AOC literally said that Heng (and all Republicans) was a neo-Nazi KKK member? Do non-white-supremacists often write "love letters to...white supremacy?" For further proof of the lunacy of the far-left's calling everyone with whom they disagree "racists" and "white supremacists," consider the recent case of reknowned ANTI-racism advocate Daryl Davis, a black man who has deradicalized over 200 former KKK members, who was called a a "white supremacist" by far-left Antifa lunatics who were protesting a free speech conference he was speaking at. This is a deranged cancer eating away at the far-left. These types of responses and the delusional ideology that inspires them are borderline a collective mental illness at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Sept 15, 2019 23:34:27 GMT -5
When she made her original tweet, she didn't know. It wasn't clear to me that that was the case, but regardless, it looks like it was the subsequent tweet that used the term "white supremacism", not the initial one. So when she is--allegedly--referring to Heng as a white supremacist, she's certainly aware at that point that Heng isn't white. That's why I don't think she's really saying (or thinking) that Heng is a white supremacist. Yeah, I definitely don't read it the same way, at all.
I feel like there must be some context I've missed here. It doesn't seem like she needed to be "informed" of this, because Heng's Cambodian heritage is alluded to in the ad itself ("My father was minutes from death in Cambodia when a forced marriage saved his life.") Unless maybe AOC didn't watch the ad before tweeting about it? I guess that's possible.
Yes, that indeed seems to be the case.
Well again, I don't take her to be claiming that all Repubs are racist. I guess that's a possible interpretation if one wants to be extremely uncharitable, but I don't read it the same way, at all. But hey, if there's a real problem w/ AOC painting w/ too broad of a brush here--and that may indeed be a bad habit of hers-- then Heng's response is pretty funny... "I'm calling all Democrats out for supporting an evil ideology." LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Sept 16, 2019 1:35:56 GMT -5
"Republicans are running TV ads...to convince people they aren't racist." Plural subject (group) - verb - prepositional phrase.
Perhaps you and I had different courses in English grammar, but that sentence construction implies "all," as it is a category generalization. Replace "Republicans" with any other group, "racist" with some other insult, pretend it was a tweet from a Republican, and see if you interpret it as generously. Some examples: "Mexicans are running TV ads...to convince people they aren't drug dealers and rapists." - Donald Trump "Blacks are running TV ads...to convince people they aren't gang bangers." - Lindsey Graham "Muslims are running TV ads...to convince people they aren't terrorists." - Dick Cheney If you still don't think that the syntactical arrangement of that sentence construction implies "all" (spoiler alert: it does), and you feel that you (or most people) wouldn't interpret that type of a statement as an "all people belonging to Group X" when reading something like that, consider this non-political example: "Salmon swim upstream...to lay their eggs." I don't go by what I imagine someone might have meant in their head, because I'm not a mind-reader. I go by what people actually write. She's a public professional (supposedly) so she should know to choose her words more carefully. Unfortunately, she's also an idiot (as are most politicians on all sides, it seems), so she doesn't do that. I also don't care about Heng, because she seems to just be a "Chicken Little"-like troll absurdly proclaiming that the sky is falling from socialism, just like the "non-thinking man's thinking man" Jordan Peterson. However, my problem wasn't just with AOC and her ilk always painting people with too broad a brush; it was that "white nationalism/supremacy" is their version of the "satanic panic" of the 80s, in that they see it everywhere, accuse everyone they don't like of practicing this racial witchcraft, and their attention to it is exponentially disproportionate to its actual existence in the broader population. Mainly, though, it's just a cowardly, deeply unintelligent weapon they use to bully their opponents, and they seem to categorize more and more people as their opponents every day. If everyone is a white supremacist, then that word no longer has any meaning and they'll have to start making something else up. I just want the Democrats to return to being an arguably sane, reasonable party. They're being taken over by a malignant disease not unlike when the Tea Party took over and sabotaged the Republicans, and it will ensure a Trump victory in 2020, which is something I do not want. |
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Sept 16, 2019 1:58:46 GMT -5
*shrug*
I take "Republicans are running TV ads" to refer to the Republicans who were running the TV ads, and no one else. Because obviously, not all Repubs would have been involved w/ the production of a TV ad.
In any case...
While that type of strict textualism might have its merits, I guess it just seems rather unlikely to me that AOC really believes that all Repubs without exception are racist. To me, that's just common sense rather than mind-reading. If her tweets weren't expressed as well as they could've been, I guess that's fair enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Sept 16, 2019 2:07:29 GMT -5
I mean, maybe you're right, but the totality of her comments publicly and on Twitter over the past year or so make me think that she probably does think they're all white supremacists by default, in the same way that Heng seems to think that all socialists are potential mass murderers.
The "people who disagree with me are white supremacists" is as Pavolvian a response for people like AOC as dogs salivating from ringing bells.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Sept 16, 2019 2:10:37 GMT -5
Interesting. Maybe I'm just being too charitable in thinking people can't possibly be lacking in nuance to such a degree. That goes for Heng, as well. If someone pressed her and asked, "Do you literally think all Dems, without exception, are socialists?", I'm assuming she'd probably say no.
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Sept 16, 2019 2:26:51 GMT -5
You're probably not being too charitable. I'm likely being too cynical. It's been a long week and the increasing absurdity on both sides is leaving me exhausted.
(but, I also study reasoning and belief formation and unfortunately, yes, data consistently shows that a significant proportion of the population does lack the ability or at least the desire to both understand and use nuance, which can be depressing if I stop to think about it too much)
|
|
