Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism’s in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, “I don’t believe in Beatles, I just believe in me.” Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I’d still have to bum rides off people.
Goo goo g’joob
It’s like how nobody ever gives Adolf Hitler credit for all the good things he did. For example, he’s the guy who killed Hitler.
These passive aggressive shrugging remarks don’t help things. People who are legitimately not racist don’t shrug at accusations of racism. But it is a great way to be deliberately dismissive, to try and piss off your opposition rather than prove them wrong.
It doesn’t matter that you said you “disagree” with the Anglo-Saxon remarks. The rest of the statements were based on that racist statement. You went out of your way to find something where you could show common ground with the racists, rather than disavowing them.
This whole thing was so racist that even Republicans are trying to distance themselves. And yet you are trying to find a way to make it work.
It sucks seeing someone radicalized, but that’s what we seem to see here. You went from the guy who would argue disingenuously and get mad that people called you out on it, to thinking that you’re a victim, to supporting racists. Despite all our attempts to pull you out of that path, you kept on going.
At this point, you’re going to have to make an explicit choice. Will you disavow the racists? Or will you keep on acting like it’s okay to try and find common ground with them? Or will you keep doing down the rabbit hole, winding up a full on white supremacist? Because that’s where you are headed.
You say I’d get mad; I shrug because I don’t see it. You say I think I’m a victim; I shrug because I don’t see that, either. Obviously I’d disagree with you about the rest of that stuff, too, but: where are you even getting those little throw-it-in bits? It’d be like saying my son got married after he failed the firefighter exam: that’d be incorrect, sure — but it’d also be weird, in that I’ve never, y’know, had a son.
If you want me to mention various racist ideas I don’t hold, and then, uh “disavow” each one of them, I’ll do so — but if anyone ever happens to mention an idea I do hold, then I’ll of course shrug and note that we have “common ground” on that point; it’d be, well, disingenuous of me to do otherwise.
It’s interesting; in a way, my whole point is that I can agree with someone about three things while disagreeing with them about four others: that, even if I’ve just now heard a guy say something I like, I’ll “disavow” the next words out of his mouth if it’s a claim I reject — racist or otherwise.
That, if I’d have rejected it before hearing we have common ground on something else, I’ll — still reject it after hearing that we have common ground on something else.
I can’t imagine doing otherwise.
You say I’m headed for the opposite, that I’ll eventually accept the claims I reject; obviously I think you’re wrong, but I think you’re wrong because I note that agreement on one point in no way precludes disagreement on another: I figure the way to keep from going seven-for-seven is to keep noting “well, ‘no’ on four, but ‘yes’ on three’.
You have said specifically that you would accept a package that has racism in it, if it includes other things that you do like. The racism part should be a non-starter, if it contains racism, then the whole thing should be rejected.
And when you vote for someone, you are voting for all their views, not just the ones that you like. So, if you vote for a racist because they share your views on puppies, you are still supporting their views on racism.
If there are things you like in a package, then look for, or lobby for other candidates that have those things. The racists may not be the only ones that offer them.
Now, OTOH, as one of the things that you do like is the xenophobia, it may be difficult to find that in a non-racist candidate. I seriously doubt that anyone but a racist will support your proposal that undocumented immigration should be punished with slavery. That’s a pretty heinous view, and is only likely to be found among those who support other forms of racism and xenophobia.
Yeah, this is the thing.
This…
“I could support a white supremacist candidate if they were advancing other policies that I felt outweighed that.”
Plus…
“The the most important policies to me are a hardliner immigration stance and strict, to the point of inhumanity, border control.”
Equals…
“I could support a white supremacist candidate, but only id the were advancing white supremacist policies.”
His position is functionally equivalent to that of a white supremacist.
In this instance, though, it does preclude it. The kind of poisonous bullshit being spewed by white supremacists is grounds for dismissing them completely. You DON’T “agree” with them on the three points; the very fact that they embrace the four crap bullet points means that their embrace of the three non-crap ones isn’t agreement; it’s sheer coincidence. like the fact that they’re carbon-based life forms that metabolize oxygen.
There are plenty of non-dismissible folks embracing the three that you can ethically support, even if you disagree with 100K of their other points. Those other four are a vial of antimatter that should put a group on your “ignore” list, as if they don’t exist.
Fuck Ferris. Cameron was the real hero.
According to one theory, Ferris was just a figment of Cameron’s imagination.
Unless of course, you actually do support those racist viewpoints, and use the more agreeable points as a fig leaf to support the whole package.
“Could you ever support a white supremacist candidate?”
“Does he support sensible policies like sentencing illegal border crossers to hard labor? If that’s the case I could get behind him because that outweighs the white supremacy.”
It doesn’t outweigh the white supremacy, it is white supremacy.
You know who else metabolized oxygen?
Joseph Priestly?
It’s funny, really, because among the most common “totally not” (but actually completely) racist reasons given for why we supposedly “need” hardline immigration policies are:
- To keep immigrants from “stealing” jobs.
- To keep immigrants from becoming a tax burden.
And yet the policy that “totally not” (but actually completely) racist TOWP would have us impose would effectively:
- Ensure that immigrants displace low income workers in the US through slave labor (do for free what many of them had done voluntarily for less than spectacular, often highly exploitative wages anyway), thereby both “stealing” the job of an America anyway and depriving the US of any opportunity to tax the income that might have been generated by that job even if it had been done by someone in the US unlawfully but as a non-slave.
- Make it so that the tax payers must now feed and care for those would-be immigrant turned slave laborers like any other captive of the US government, thereby increasing the tax burden (and, again, depriving us of the tax income the government may have gotten had anyone but a slave done similar work).
Fucking brilliant (if you’re a white supremacist looking to tear down democracy and set up a fascist white nationalist ethno-state, that is).
… on their white hoods
In the case of Kevin McCarthy, he actually does need the occasional non-white guy or gal to vote for his sorry ass, so there’s that.
Wait, does that mean that FBDO is a prequel to Fight Club?
Gesundheit.
I could totally see that Cameron turns into Ed Norton in Fight Club in his adulthood.
Tyler Durden is what Ferris Bueller evolves into, as Cameron’s inner darkness metastasizes from a lovable prankster scoffing authority to a complete anarchist trying to destroy that same authority.
This expands upon the old theory that Fight Club shows Calvin all grown up, as Hobbes becomes Tyler Durden. Perhaps the Cameron/Ferris phase is the adolescent bridge between childhood and adulthood.