Absolutely. But I suppose because of some things in my heritage, I can hesitate to call something really, really bad by the word “slavery” unless it meets certain characteristics. OTOH I can also understand using the term so that it’s clear just how really, really bad one wants to convey it is. I suppose it’s typical SDMB pedantry on my part.
And yes, I smiled at that exchange in the movie too.
::shrugs::
It seems absurd to me to do otherwise. If I agree with someone on three things, but disagree on four, then I’ll mention that when asked; and if I agree with four but disagree on three, then I’ll mention that; and I’ll mention it even if they’re a white supremacist, and I’ll mention it even if they’re an illegal alien.
Jesus Christ, you are one stupid fucker.
And that’s the most charitable description of you possible.
Then again, you also came up with “triple chocolate heroin sundae,” as an example of selling a bad idea by surrounding it with ideas that aren’t bad. So it’s a net win overall. 
That’s a kind of disingenuous way of describing the situation, though.
The (paraphrased) question in the “racist caucus” thread was not “Which specific points of this nativist manifesto do Republicans here agree with?”
It was “What do Republicans here think of this nativist manifesto?”
If somebody asks you what you think of the Unabomber, for example, you probably wouldn’t start out with something like “Well, I admire the intelligence and dedication it took him to get a math PhD, and I think he does make some good points in his writings about alienation in modern consumer society.” I mean, the first thing that would probably spring to your mind about him is that he was a multiple-murdering whackjob, so you would say what you thought about that.
If you just ignored that elephant in the room to focus on those other, more positive details, you’d be giving the strong impression that you didn’t really mind his being a multiple-murdering whackjob.
Similarly, if you’re asked what you think of a racist diatribe that’s so gross even its authors disavow it after getting widespread pushback, and your answer just focuses on which of the diatribe’s specific statements on immigration you do or don’t agree with, then you’re giving the strong impression that you don’t really mind the gross-racism part.
Good point. Well, then, let me add that I do mind the gross-racism part.
This is simply not believable at this point.
::shrugs::
In the thread in question, my first post upon being asked to chime in — made mention of the fact that I’m not a fan of the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ line that got quoted. Because, well, I’m not, is all, and so I said so.
Meh, I’ll believe it. My guess is that he was miffed at the “shit-for-brains” epithet and got a li’l bit trolly in consequence.
That doesn’t hold water because his crypto-racist posts are not confined to that thread and some preceded the “shit-for-brains” post.
When someone shows you who they are, believe them.
It’s pretty meta to apply your, now well known, penchant for plucking non-racist sounding fragments from a larger, obviously racist, body of work, to your own posting history.
@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper I don’t have any particular dog in this fight, and I’m not really familiar with you as a poster. So I will take your comments about the manifesto at face value, and assume you are giving a good faith opinion of it.
I think these are the critical things you’re missing:
Any document issued by anything as public as this caucus is always going to padded with generic sentiments about safety and prosperity or whatever; it could hardly begin with “Heil Hitler”. Heck, any proposal made by house representatives, period, is going to be sweetened with statements like that.
It’s not like when a democrat proposes medicare for all or the green new deal that republicans say “Well, I like the stuff about maintaining the health of americans” or “I agree with the stuff about the importance of maintaining our environment and climate” – they get straight to the meat of it. And, in this case, the meat is “anglo saxon culture”, “european architecture” and the implication that immigrants are inherently bad.
There are more specific problems in this context.
Tucker Carlson et al often try to paint non-whites (through various dog whistles) as lazy, violent agents of chaos. He still describes the Jan 6 rioters in more favorable terms than the BLM protesters: the former are patriots, “deeply frustrated” about what has happened to America, and the latter are animals, that just want to loot and burn.
Saying that you agree with the parts of the manifesto that state that immigrants should be bringing skills needed in America or do jobs americans need doing and not be a drain etc, implicitly buys into that rhetoric. As though anyone is advocating for the opposite.
Or as though it’s obvious that immigrants are inherently a drain compared to native born Americans.
I nearly gave up on this thread, but I’m glad I stuck with it to the end, as this is a great post - thanks.
This is the thing that I find most striking about TOWP’s baffling attempts to extract nuggets of value out of this giant mound of horseshit.
If you have paid reasonably close attention to political rhetoric for any significant period of time, and if you have more than two brain cells, you develop a sensitivity for nonsensical platitudes like this. And you realize, in short order, that they do not exist as arguments in themselves, but as camouflage for the speaker’s actual intention.
Take, for example, from the manifesto in question, the statement that a country should favor immigrants who make a positive contribution of some kind, to culture or the economy or whatever. It seems like a no-brainer, right? Well, that’s because it is, in fact, exactly that — it’s intended to appeal to the person who has no brain. And you can recognize it as such if you perform the stunning magic trick of turning it around, and imagining the counter-argument. “Actually, we believe immigration should have a negative impact on the country!” Nobody is saying that, or would say that. It is, therefore, by itself, empty and wholly meaningless.
So why say it? To begin with, by advancing a no-brainer statement, you imply that the political opposition has the contrary agenda. You further their demonization, and increase the already extreme polarization of the discourse. It is not a positive contribution to the dialogue; it adds nothing but poison. But you can still draw in foolish people who don’t understand what you’re doing, and prime them to be more receptive for the points you actually want to make. It’s the Tyler Durden trick — you start with something agreeable (“you feel like an alienated outsider”) and then lead your flock to madness (“so we should punch each other in the face and then blow up a building”).
The correct response, when presented with manifesto that veils its venomous heart with a cloak of risible bromides, is not to extract those bromides for praise. The correct response is to recognize the whole for what it is, rejecting it, root and branch, as unworthy of consideration, and denouncing its creators as craven manipulators. If you do not do this, then either you are a believer in the obscured agenda, consciously assisting with the distraction that advances it, and you warrant condemnation and ostracism; or you are a political moron with the intellectual capacity of aquarium gravel, and are unfit for participation in the debate.
The QOP caucus has constructed a high-explosive suicide vest for the country, and has decorated it with a few embroidered flowers. TOWP says he’s not interested in the bomb, but is expressing admiration for the textile artist’s color sense.
The only question for the thread is why he’s doing this.
I’d be with Kimstu in the hypothesis that in that particular thread he felt like counterpoking at “you shit-for-brains Republicans” but he was clearly eager to offer an opinion, since he kept asking like at least three times for the request for comments to be expanded.
Again, he was eager to offer similar (racist) opinions in other threads and before the shit-for-brains post. He’s not just pushing back on that comment. He’s actually racist.
You might argue that he’s not racist but he’s just such an immigration hardliner that he’s willing to support racists to achieve his goals for border policy, but I’d argue that that is a distinction without a difference.
When are all the benefit-of-the-doubt chucklefucks going to get over this stupid notion that racists are some rare creature, seldom encountered?
If someone looks like a racist in an online conversation, 95% of the time it’s because they are one.
@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper put a lot of effort into writing a ton of posts that supported racist policies. He should be happy to know that that effort wasn’t wasted. Now I, and a bunch of other posters, I’m sure, are thoroughly convinced that he’s racist.
It’s going to take at least that much effort to convince me otherwise.
He’s not racist. He’s just looking out for his own.