I’ll be sure to create a list of Government Regulations to ensure that publishing companies and other private corporations must sell what I tell them to.
He was comparing the choice by a “small store” to sell an American flag to the “provocative” “impact” of a marketing decision by the commercial giant Amazon.
My point is that commercial giant Amazon’s marketing decisions also include selling American flags: in fact, lots of them, as you note. But octopus doesn’t think of that as having any societal “impact”, or being “provocative”, because to conservatives, a company doing things that conservatives approve of is just “normal”.
The problem is that this attitude is, at least in my experience, almost always accompanied by the a-priori assumption that “you hate me.”
I have no problem with someone saying “donald trump is a racist prick and I hate him.” There’s enough reason for someone to come to that conclusion, based on his actions and words. I have a massive problem whenever I hear “all white people are racist, therefore they hate me and therefore I hate them” when speaking about complete strangers who happen to be dining at the same restaurant. And yes, I hear this all the goshdarn time. It’s sickeningly ubiquitous.
It doesn’t matter who is in the majority either locally or in macro. Racism is wrong.
Put another way: it’s fine to hate someone in response to a personal experience you have with them or some specific action that a specific individual has taken. It’s not fine to hate anyone based on their circumstantial membership to a group like race or gender or gender preference. I don’t care if said race is white or black, that gender is male or female, or that preference is gay or straight - it’s wrong.
As other posters have noted, this tactic is not new. I used to call “controversies” like the ones you described “junk food issues” because, like junk food, they provided a quick burst of energy but were ultimately the equivalent of empty calories in that they contributed nothing to the political discourse. Unfortunately, like junk food and the American diet, “junk food issues” have come to dominate much of the political discussion today. If you’re a candidate who criticizes discussion of such subjects on grounds they don’t matter and only waste time, you’re attacked as an elitist. If you ignore them altogether, you do so at your own peril.
I’ll state my assumptions more clearly so as to avoid misunderstanding. The topic was speakers on campus being banned due to hate speech. There’s a difference between saying “I don’t want David Duke speaking at a campus rally because he’s a white supremacist” vs. “I don’t want to live in the same dorm as a white person just because they’re white.” The former is justified, the latter is not.
Here’s your first post in the first Kaepernick thread I found:
You seem to be saying that he made his bed and should lie in it, because that’s the current fad. I don’t see you decrying the anti-woke mobs that (probably) led to his dismissal.
And, while you shouldn’t be expected to jump onto every issue involving some corporate “cancellation”, you do seem to jump on every thread that you perceive involved the “woke mob”, whatever the fuck that is.
First, out of how many? Probably about 10 or so. Regardless, it’s irrelevant. As I said before, one isn’t obligated to campaign against 100% of the injustice to have a voice.
By the way, just in case it isn’t clear, I’m ridiculing the term consequence because quite often but not always it’s a euphemism for violence. Like “mostly peaceful.”
And yes, I do jump on quite a few of the threads that deal with the woke mob. And that’s because they are a corrosive and insidious danger.
I agree. This whole tangent is irrelevant to this thread, which is about the Republicans not having a governing agenda, and using bullshit scandals to distract from that fact.
I disagree with the OP, though – in addition to using bullshit scandals to distract from not having much of an agenda, they seem to be working hard to restrict voting rights. Restriction of voting rights is at least part of a governing agenda.
The three articles you cited give zero examples of segregated dorms, campus spaces, and graduation ceremonies. Did you read them? Do you have any cites that support your claims?
The dorm floors in the article were open to all students.
The minority only gym never happened.
Some clubs had additional graduation ceremonies for members of those clubs.
None of those support your claims.
I’m shocked by this! See: 
No, wait, that’s not right. Here it is: 
I have another take: If we accept the rise of a racialized hard left that seeks to make white people the enemy, you dan ecpect to see the rise of a racializef hard right in opposition.
The far left probably wants this, as it helps demonize the right.
Normal people with brains and a knowledge of history should be looking at the rise of a hard left and a hard right at each other’s throats over racial issues and go, ‘holy shit - we’ve seen this before, and it ends in a heap of misery.’
I’ve always wondered what it must have felt like to live in Weimar Germany or Czarist Russia while forces built that led to a breakdown of civic norms and eventual national tragedy. Now I’m afraid thst we’re all going to find out.
Yes, and if the Queen of England is a secret lizard person, what response can we expect from the Bigfoot community?
Normal people with brains and a knowledge of history don’t stan for the Brown Shirts.
I’ve always wondered how supposedly decent people in those times could just stand by and let everything go to shit.
Now that I’ve seen it in person, I still don’t understand it, but apparently it involves a lot of “both sides are just as bad!” rhetoric.
?! Are you under the illusion that we don’t already have a frighteningly large “racialized hard right” in this country? Oh, you sweet summer Canadians…
There is nothing on the US left, or at all likely to emerge on the US left, anywhere near comparable in size or radicalism or lawlessness to our racialized hard right.
Can’t you imagine what it was like to be in Weimar Germany, watching the hard right (Nazis) battling with the hard left (anti-Nazis) and just trying to position yourself as the reasonable moderate? Poor Sam.
Cue the usual suspect…
Why are you dragging Die Antwoord into this?
And remember that a Nazi tactic was blowing up the supposed threat from the Communists.
Maybe Sam believes the Communists actually burned down the Reichstag.
I do hope he tells us the identity of this hard left with all this power. Were they the peaceful BLM marchers? (I don’t think the looters had much in the way of a political position.) Are they the people trying to reduce poverty? Are they the people trying to decrease income inequality? How many seats do they have in Congress?
Another major paramilitary group scuffling in the streets of Berlin were the communists.
Which is to say, people associated with the biggest mass murdering ideology of the 20th century. They were “anti-Nazi” and also achieved a lofty mountain of corpses to which the fascists sincerely aspired, but could not themselves reach.
Being “anti-Nazi” is not, by itself, a sign of basic decency. It is necessary, yes, but not remotely close to sufficient.
Just because they weren’t the group to take power in that particular country doesn’t mean they weren’t a threat.
They took power in more places, and ultimately killed more people.
There was nothing “supposed” about the danger. There had already been attempted communist coups earlier in Weimar history, in addition to the putsch attempts from the nationalists. It was much easier for the Nazis to lie about later incidents because of the previous uprisings.
I just want to point out that, while this is correct, it does not mean that everything you do that you call an expression of your religion is protected.
If you insist on cutting off the head of a live chicken and chanting naked in the office breakroom everyday at 9:30 AM, because you say that it is part of your religion, you can certainly be fired for that.
Point being, I don’t think that someone should be fired for being a Republican, or even for being a MAGA, but they can certainly be fired if they make hateful or bigoted remarks, even if they claim that they are doing so because of their political positions.
This is a very good point. And if they actually talked about their agenda and the costs associated with it, then they would have little public support.
So, instead, they make it about “culture”. That they are the ones that are protecting American values, and that if they are not elected and allowed to work for the wealthiest and most fortunate, then The Cat in the Hat will be murdered by “leftists”.
Their cultural grievance is all about distracting from their agenda. They certainly don’t want to “solve” it, as then, they would have to run on policy, on their ability to govern, rather than on outrage.