In fairness, the Boston Tea Party was pretty childish. At least the guys at Tucker’s house weren’t cosplaying.
Let’s say someone believes that, given their awesome driving skills, they should be allowed to speed. The groups debates it and says “no”. If the individual doesn’t choose to leave the group, and continues to speed. Then what?
Let’s say that the group decides to ban all handguns. One guy thinks a handgun may save his life as he makes night deposits, but is unable to convince the group to allow him to carry one. But he carries one anyway. Then what.
Let’s say that someone believes that they pay a lot in property and income taxes, so they shouldn’t;t have to pay income tax. The group disagrees, but the person never pays what he owes in income tax. Then what?
And what are these, “any number of things”?
Can you spell “bubble”?
What?!! You had to watch a whole episode? I’d a thought a smart guy like you could have closed his mind after 20, 30 seconds. A minute, tops!
So, if not humans, what are we? And what is the point of this designation? If I assign you the same designation, are we all back in the same category again?
Also, can you offer a clue as to the relationship between your first and second sentences here?
Orangeman bad!
STOP THIS.
STOP THIS RIGHT NOW.
casting other people off as “sub-human” never (and I mean NEVER) leads anywhere good. Casting off groups of people as “sub-human” gets us shit like slavery, lynching, Jim Crow, the Holocaust, The Wall, Islamophobia, extermination of the Rohingya, Nanking, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Okay, how about “barely human”? Meets minimum requirements?
3/5ths Compromise.
Or “only”?
The 3rd sentence in the post you excerpted was “But I don’t endorse crimes or despicable behavior.” That wasn’t clear enough?
Point by point:
(1) If I didn’t know Tucker Carlson, I’m living in a “bubble”? Got it, I guess. What you don’t know that’s more relevant than that pathetic excuse of a human would fill volumes.
(2) It was clear very quickly how despicable Carlson was. I watched for several minutes (though not the whole episode) not because I was having trouble making up my mind, but because I was transfixed in amazement. I’d heard FoxNews was bad, but this was beyond belief. You think you’re smart: What do you think about Tucker Carlson, please?
(3) I apologize for calling you subhuman. I’m sure you’re in H. sapiens; in fact if I had to bet the over/under, I’ll guess your IQ has three digits — most of your ilk is too stupid to post on message boards. The word “subhuman” was hyperbole, intended to express my contempt for your cognition and morality. Right-wingers prefer “pithy colorful language”, no?
Update. Matt Yglesias tweets something less than sympathetic about Carlson’s plight. He is promptly doxxed on twitter. The comment is flagged. Twitter says that this is not a violation of their policies (though it is) and leaves the comment up. Slate writes an article. Yglesias deletes his tweet and takes a break from twitter. Twitter finally figures out their policies and deletes the tweet with Yglesias’ address.
The self proclaimed incel who doxxed Yglesias is still around.
To be honest, no. It was all over the place and kind of unhinged and at one point you called some other people subhuman. In general, once you’ve played that card, I think it’s a good time to step back from the table and sit out a few hands.
BTW, madmonk, you appear to have misread the 4th paragraph of sep’s post (#139). He was characterizing the behavior and claims of the Trump, made in front of rallies.
Commentary on twitter by Brian Beutler of Crooked Media: 6. So Carlson, a career propagandist, is given benefit of the doubt and faces no consequences for duping everyone (including liberals) about the protest.
7. His allies, also career propagandists, face no consequences for smearing Matt.
- Matt is driven off Twitter indefinitely for having what turns out to be a faithful and clear-eyed view of the situation.
Thread by @brianbeutler: "Thread. As near as I can tell, what happened is this: 1. The political community took Tucker Carlson's claim that protesters terrorized his […]"
I agree. They are fully human, it’s just that they are racist horrible humans that I hold in contempt.
Ok, so we’ve moved from eliminationist rhetoric to virtue signaling.
We have our work cut out for us. We need to fight voter suppression in the courts, boost turnout and maybe flip a few business conservatives to the neoliberal cause. None of that will happen in this thread so we’re all good. I’m just making some distinctions.
I vent too. But it’s best to distinguish between that and the sweat and muscle needed to push this country away from racially charged authoritarianism.
The way I read septimus’s rant is under the assumption that they are the ones who see others as sub-human, including those who vote democrat.
Much of what the rhetoric on the right has been about dehumanizing liberals and democrats.
I do not see septimus’s comment as an accusation, but rather, as a response. Maybe not the best response, but an appropriate one, given the forum and the thread.
He says, They are the subhumans; not us.
You are correct that the language is problematic and leads to bad places. But you are incorrect to be blaming septimius for the fact that it exists.
As a response to being made to feel dehumanized, I do not agree it is the most productive, but as venting in response to being degraded and insulted yourself, absolutely understandable.
No you wouldn’t you fucking jackass. You’d whine and complain, because it’s all you fucking do. Every ddamned post from you is you bitching or whining or denigrating someone about something you think they did.
This is the biggest, rankest crock of shit I’ve seen on these boards in quite a while. And that’s saying something. If you don’t actually agree with the septimus’s vileness, you’re every bit as delusional. Unbelievable.
Thanks for defending me.
I don’t think I’ve used invective like this ever, at any time in nearly seven decades, except very recently in response to how rabid America’s right-wing has become. I do not try to hide my anger now. (But I should try to exercise more self-control, and avoid emulating the slurs, lies and whines of the Trumpists.)
I want to be hopeful that 50% of Americans are good-spirited and will prevail — though 55% will be needed due to GOP cheating. I’m familiar with Evil. Trump, Carlson, many of the top Republicans — these are evil men. OTOH, posters at SDMB who embrace Trumpism confuse me. Most are probably more confused than evil. How can we pound sense into their heads?
I think there may be a sentiment that “Trumpism can’t be as evil as you think — 37% of Americans embrace it.” But …
In the 1932 German elections, Hitler’s party got 37% of the vote.
No, I got that, I just want to make sure that we stay in the right side of history. The difference between us and then is that we’re better. We condemn our politicians when they sexually harass women and we condemn our nutters, but they elect them to office.
Fuck off. You constantly demonize and dehumanize all of a democratic persuasion. You treat your political opponents as enemies to be defeated at all costs, not as fellow citizens with whom you can compromise and work together to achieve shared goals. To then whine about one poster on one board saying, in effect “No, U.” just demonstrates the complete bankruptcy of not only your morality, but your basic logical capacity.
You are the crock of shit, and that you see others as the same is only because you are unable to see beyond your own fetid worldview.
That actually doesn’t even make any sense. If I don’t agree with septimus that it is you, and not us that are subhuman, then I am delusional? Hmmm, food for thought. I wouldn’t have said it myself, but since you are insisting that it is the case…