He’s too afraid to leave his house for fear of being identified by roving alt-left gangs.
Snowflakes gonna snowflake.
Right (read: progressive) things are generally good not because they afford you control or power but because they are right and good for their own sake, and because they tend to reflect and promote a more just society.
Change is often two steps forward and one step back, but historically, societies tend to become more progressive and more just, not less.
Trump’s “winning” is a step backwards. It will be short lived and there will be a rebound effect in favour of continued forward progress.
Unless I’m being whooshed, that’s my point: if Trump had insulted some of them with the bit about being rapists who bring drugs and crime, and left that unamended when cheerfully explaining that at least one of them isn’t a drug-smuggling rapist bringing crime, would the folks who excoriate him for his insult-all-and-then-amend remark have said “well, then, that’s okay, because all along he only insulted some, right?”
Assuming arguendo that it’s a difference: is it that big a difference?
(And, again: would people give a racist a pass if he patiently explains that millions and millions and millions and millions of blacks are worthless parasites who’ll only ever be a drain on society with their inborn criminal tendencies – so long as he then adds, not to amend that remark but to instead comment on other blacks, that some blacks are okay? Is that really how the magic I Gave An Out phrase works?)
Really? Can you quote when Clinton called you a racist?
The post you’re replying to – did I say I was talking about myself?
Because my hands are clean, hey nonny nonny: I wasn’t a Trump supporter or a Trump voter, so as far as I can tell I wasn’t referenced by the ‘basket of deplorables’ line; and, to the best of my knowledge, Clinton never said that I’m irredeemable.
Or a racist. Or a xenophobe. Or a bigot. Or whatever.
If you’re a deplorable and all butt-hurt over HRC’s comment then you’ve only got yourself to blame.
If you’re not then what are you on about?
Well, since I’m not “a deplorable and all butt-hurt”, the first part is irrelevant.
But as to the second, why do I need to be in the denigrated group to be “on about” denigrating remarks? I often comment on denigrating remarks despite not being in the group that’s getting denigrated. Is that wrong? Should I stop doing that?
Knock yourself out; Even nazis had legal counsel during Nuremberg trials.
Sorry, you seemed to be sharing in the offense that you claim she created, so I assumed that you were offended by what you were claiming she had said.
To the best of your knowledge did she say that about anyone else?
I am just wondering why you think that people felt that clinton called them a racist.
I have seen her call out racists in general, and I think she has named a few like David Duke (who should not be offended by being called a racist), but I don’t see how anyone could think that she was calling them a racist, unless they saw themselves as a racist.
I see her whole line as being, “Look at who your allies are. Look at the other people who are enthusiastic about the possibility of a trump administration. Are these the people you really want to be allied with? Are these the people who share your goals for America?” It was giving people an out, a reason not to be associated with such “deplorables.”
Lets put it this way, if I tell you that half the people in the room are racists, most people would take that as a sign that they should leave the room, not feel insulted because they feel that they were called a racist.
Sorry, English is not my first language ( and neither is Spanish, believe me 
), so it is very possible that I have misunderstood something, especially with these long convoluted sentences.
Here I don’t get the part where you say “…left that unamended when cheerfully explaining that at least one of them isn’t a drug-smuggling rapist….”
The way I read this is that he didn’t amend while cheerfully doing so. 
Also Trump said “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people,”. He didn’t say “* some of them are*…”, which wouldn’t need amending.
As Clinton didn’t need to amend because she didn’t say “Trump supporters…”, but “…half of Trump’s supporters…”. That was pre-amended ( if that’s a word ).
However, if you though that I was whoosing you, we probably don’t disagree that much in the end and this post may be unnecessary. 
piffle.
Your entire tirade was with insults to the ones that are not really doing what you claim, me and virtually all are pointing out at the base that clearly do like to see an autocrat, racist, misogonist, anti science git in power.
My point stands that you are dumb if you continue to miss that a very significant group of people that were taken by the right wing spin and believed that the hate Trump showed for democracy, science, women and minorities during the campaign was just a ruse to win the presidency.
Most of them are realizing that indeed, they were had.
Trigglypuff posts here?
And you might need to calm down before you have a fit.
Well, offended might not be the best word. I guess I’d note that Clinton herself came out one day later and expressed regret for her comment – despite not being one of those irredeemable deplorables, of course – and I guess I’m nodding in agreement with her one-day-later statement, and I guess I’m concerned that the next Democrat to run for president will (a) of course get asked, so, given Hillary Clinton’s remark, how many millions of Americans do you believe are irredeemably deplorable; and may (b) reply, gosh, I guess it’s at least tens of millions.
And I’m not sure that’d be a smart move.
It could spark another one-day-later expression of regret, is my point.
I don’t believe I said that. What I said, and stand by, is that folks who’ve been called “racist” by Democrats heard a Democrat say that some of the folks who support Trump are (a) racists, and (b) deplorable to the point of being irredeemable.
Well, let me ask you this: if some brand-new poster – who, of course, doesn’t see himself as a racist – started a thread in the BBQ Pit, saying he passionately believes that affirmative action should be struck down immediately, how long do you think it’d be before someone on this here left-leaning board slung a “racist” accusation his way? What if he said he thinks that All Lives Matter; or that he engages in what folks are calling cul-tur-al app-ro-pri-at-ion, and he doesn’t see what all the fuss is?
I figure he’d get a finger-wagging line about being a racist right on Page One. If you disagree, then that’s why you don’t see how anyone could think she was referring to them; but if I’m right, and they’ve been called ‘racist’ by Democrats without actually seeing themselves as ‘racist’, then the inference doesn’t seem unreasonable.
But, see, I have in mind people who’ve already been called racists, again and again. That doesn’t mean they see themselves as racists; it means they realize that other people see them as racists. And it means that, if they’re then told that racists are deplorable to the point of being irredeemable – well, I can see why they’d wonder if this is another I Disagree But I Get That I’m Being Referenced scenarios.
You said that you’ve had people sneeringly tell you they were being called deplorable. You think they’re wrong; I get that. But did they strike you as being too stupid to function in everyday life? Like, a “can’t tie their own shoelaces” level of stupidity? Or maybe “stabbing oneself in the eye with a fork while trying to eat soup” stupid? Or did you think, man, three different people who act like they could hold down jobs got that impression somehow, even though I don’t think she was referring to them?
Because there are people that I don’t think she was referring to – but, if pressed, I’d have to admit that, no, I honestly don’t know whether she meant them.
It is always a political misstep to tell uncomfortable truths, sadly.
This is why we can’t expect politicians to be honest, and why we cannot have a conversation about these uncomfortable topics.
So, because some random democrats somewhere called them a racist, they take that out on Clinton?
I guess I just don’t understand why Clinton is responsible for everything and anything that anyone who may vote for her says.
In the pit, fairly quickly, I would think, just as if you walked into a room full of professional insult comedians. If they took it personally, I would explain that they don’t really understand what the pit is all about, and they should probably stay out of it, if they are concerned about being insulted for their beliefs.
In GD, probably not quite so quickly, though yes, there would be some who would question what reasonings they have behind their desire to unilaterally dismantle something that was instituted to make up for very real and obvious inequalities in our society.
If they couldn’t back it up with anything more than the general racist type of talking points, then it is quite likely that at some point, someone will point out that they have nothing other than the general racist type of talking points, but would still not call the actual poster a racist.
Person looking for offense gets offended, news at 11.
If you go looking for someone to call you a racist, you’re gonna find someone to call you a racist. If you then take offense to that, then that’s on you.
You have people that are exposed to right wing talking points that claim that democrats are calling them racist. I see that all the time on these boards, where someone disagrees with someone about an issue related to race, and they act offended and say “Are you saying that I’m a racist?” when there was no one that said anything like that at all, they just inferred it from the fact that they know that what they are talking about is controversial at best, and that there is a good chance that people will think of them as racists for pushing their argument.
Did they strike me as stupid? No, I didn’t say that.
Did they strike me as ignorant about politics, yes. Did they strike me as gullible about believing what they want to hear, yep. Did they strike me as the sort of people who will look to find offense, and then act offended when they find it? Absolutely.
You don’t have to be stupid to be misled. You can tie your shoes, and believe something untrue at the same time. You can avoid stabbing your eye with a fork while still believing a lie. You can hold a job while being ignorant of what is happening in the political world.
Then that means that you suspect that they are racists, bigots, et al.
If you’re a Mexican drug-dealer or rapist and all butt-hurt over Trump’s comment then you’ve only got yourself to blame.
If you’re not then what are you on about?
No, it doesn’t. It means that I honestly don’t know whether she thinks that they’re racists, bigots, et al. That’s a fine line, but it’s there.
I asked you: if some brand-new poster firmly declares himself in favor of scrapping affirmative action or whatever, but doesn’t consider himself a racist, how long would it take for someone hereabouts to call him a racist? And you replied:
And I agree.
But that doesn’t mean I suspect he’s a racist, just as he aforementionedly doesn’t see himself as a racist; it just means I think folks who call themselves Democrats and vote for Democrats and something something Democrats would, in short order, say it about him. And so, if I hear Democrats say something about “racists” being deplorable and irredeemable, then I honestly don’t know whether they’re including that guy: regardless of whether I suspect that he’s a racist, and regardless of whether he sees himself as a racist, because neither of those is relevant; the only question is whether Democrats think he’s a racist.
And you and I seem to agree about what Dems in the BBQ Pit would say, so…
**Trump voters prefer Jefferson Davis as president to Barack Obama
**Trump voters also preferred Donald Holy Fucking Hell Trump to ALL THE OTHER options in the last election. Those morons have got rocks in their fucking heads.
Oh, is this the part where you’d like us all to conveniently forget that one utterance comes from someone who has no history of racist/misogynist behaviour while the other has a long history of being a bigot and misogynist - just so you can make a disingenuous and might I add, masterfully morally equivocal claim?
Bravo! Good on ya, counselor.
I guess that’s too fine a line for me, and I really like nuance.
You think that she might think that these people might be racists. What sorts of things do they do that make you think she might think that they are racists? If they are doing things that make you think that she would think them to be racist, then they are probably doing things that you would think that they are racist too.
Or is it that you think that she has different standards as to what constitutes a racist? In which case, what standards do you think she has, and how do they differ from yours?
I find that as more commentary on the nature of the pit than anything else. If anyone is offended or finds themselves needing to change political affiliations because of insults the received in the pit, then they really shouldn’t be here.
I also said that in GD, they would not have been called a racist, though I did admit that if they did not show any logical reasons for their proclamation, then it is possible that their arguments may considered to be related to racist reasons.
If you walk into a room, and invite insults upon yourself, then don’t get offended when people insult you.
I don’t get what you are saying here. If some random democrat on the internet somewhere thinks that this guy is a racist, then anything he does due to that offense is justified? You say the only question is whether democrats think he is a racist. Is that a poll we have to take, majority rules? Or just a significant minority, maybe 25% of dems think that the guy makes an argument that looks racist. If just one guy on a random message board or blog somewhere calls this guy a racist, does that count as democrats thinking he’s a racist?
You are absolutely right that there are going to be some people on the left aht think he’s a racist. There are probably fingies on the left that would call me a racist just for being white. Does that mean that I get all offended, and decide to vote in a way “that’ll show them”?
We can agree that if someone goes looking for offense, and goes into the pit, looking for offense, they are going to find offense.
I do not agree that they should actually be offended.
“Get called racists”.
Why? I don’t think calling for an end to affirmative action is prima facie evidence that someone is a racist; I merely note that some folks do think that.
I don’t think it typically is “one guy on a random message board or blog somewhere”. I’d figure anyone who’s come across it from one guy has probably seen a number of folks do it – and not just to him personally, but with breezy blanket statements: “anyone who does X is a racist” or “anyone who says Y is a racist” or “anyone who agrees with Z is a racist”. I don’t know how much of that would need to get added together before it becomes reasonable for such a guy to wonder whether a given Democrat means to include him when talking about racists – but I’m guessing that the threshold gets hit at some point.
Uh, no. It just means that, if folks “on the left” call you a racist, and then somebody “on the left” says that racists are deplorable and irredeemable, it’s maybe not all that unreasonable to wonder, hey, is she – like those other folks on the left – incorrectly classifying me as a racist? If so, then I reckon that she’s incorrectly classifying me as both deplorable and irredeemable. Say, has she specified whether she’s one of the people “on the left” who thinks that I’m a racist? Huh. You know, I’m not sure.