Wait a tick. Does this mean they leave us alone except for random snoos-snoos? We don’t have to try and figure out how we screwed up? Spend our time fishing and drinking beer?
Not saying this is a good idea, or anything, just that we should listen with an open mind.
She’s was pointing out the absurdity in suggesting that we are somehow obligated to entertain “all sides” of an issue. No we aren’t obligated to do that, and this idea seems to only be suggested when it comes to minorities. Hence, her rejoinder about white people.
Ironically, Sullivan is the one who says her rejoinder is racist against whites, even though in structure it mirror the idea he put forth about blacks. So the question is why does her comment make her a bigot while his does not?
This is probably the most attention Andrew S. has gotten in ten years. He should send her some roses. Ammo. Whatever.
Point of order: Sullivan presents some (weak, imo) evidence (without context, and in order to score some sort of points, imo) that she has said racist and/or misandrist things.
While I realize that likely means, in Sully’s mind and to his audience, that she perforce is “a racist” and “a sexist,” I would argue that one ought never ascribe to malice what may be better ascribed to ignorance, youth, anger, frustration, or any other idiocy.
IOW, “saying racist things” does not necessarily mean one is “a racist” in absence of context.
.
Here’s a Twitter thread full of screen caps. Jesus Christ, it’s worse than I thought. She’s posted literally hundreds of bigoted tweets. A few more gems:
Starting to see pattern here? I’m not sure how “context” could make any of these tweets okay but I’m open to being persuaded.
I sure am, snowflake.
Well, yeah… Ppl in general could vanish and the planet would continue merrily spinning.
Of course you can’t see how context would change the nature of these tweets, as you have removed them from the context so that you are not able to see how the context would change the nature of these tweets.
I’m having a hard time getting offended by this. Maybe I’ll try again tomorrow.
Again, I don’t know the context of all those tweets, but a few of them I became familiar with today.
But I have a serious question: let’s say a white supremacist is yelling at a black man, all sorts of vile stuff. If the black man responds with something vile himself, do you believe the black man should be presumed to be a racist in that context?
I think that may be the heart of the matter here. And I strongly suspect that the image you see was created by white nationalists or Russian trolls, given what I’ve seen this morning.
Very much. Particularly when it comes to “defensive white men.”
Shoe fits, my friend.
Silly you! You honestly think the so-called “progressive” left has weaponized language for good? Nope. It’s merely a tool to silence opposition.
Oh, thank ghod, a voice of reason has joined in.
So what?
A white male doesn’t hear things like “Go back to your country.”
I like Miller too.
Somebody should silence that guy!
Just kidding.
Defensive white men indeed, but the purpose isn’t defense; people like Sullivan are going on offense. What defensive white men really want is to take control over discussions that involve race by asserting a false equivalency.
FWIW, I would agree that it was unwise for her to write those sorts of comments, even if it was intended to be sarcasm or irony. I wouldn’t even disagree with criticism if I believed it were coming from a more honest place, but it’s not.
Conservatives don’t want an honest discussion about race. They vote for the most racist president since Woodrow Wilson and want to then claim to be speaking out in the name of better discourse and race relations?
Fuck that. Conservatives don’t get to claim that high ground.
Hmm. The sheer volume of her derogatory tweets about monolithic “white people” makes it clear that her claim that these were just responsive to baiters is bullshit. It’s pretty clear that it’s a habitual and established style of tweeting for her. I still think her intent is essentially satirical mockery, but I think it’s a truly awful idea to do this in a medium where it’s so hard to discern satire or sarcasm.
What medium would make it easier? Maybe its “message board” but the evidence at hand is unconvincing.
Well, it’s not just the medium, of course. Good satire is funny and insightful. Some of her stuff is pretty funny, but there’s some that’s seems barely distinguishable from the angry ranting of our local all-white-people-are-evil friend Huey.