Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 304: All Posts Are Bad

(+) Yeah! (+)

New legendarily bad Ben Garrison comic (redundant, I know)

https://i.imgur.com/TMnXAam.jpg

---

I want mandatory vaccines, yes. There I am in the picture.

---

i love how clearly covid shows the "fuck you, got mine" mentality of the right

and by "i love," i mean "i'm disgusted by"

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

...the entire clip is about racists and how trump's response to racists was bad. why the hell would he say he has to watch his language because he said "racists"?

I watched the whole clip. He doesn't say racists the whole time I believe. Unless I missed it.

---

biden says the charlottesville extremists were spouting "anti-semitic hate," he compares them to nazis and he says they were accompanied by the KKK but... he thinks he should watch his language because he called them "racists"? wut?

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

biden says the charlottesville extremists were spouting "anti-semitic hate," he compares them to nazis and he says they were accompanied by the KKK but... he thinks he should watch his language because he called them "racists"? wut?

Biden is actually quite good at not antagonizing people he needs to vote for him. Now some people he views as unwinnable, and those people he tells to vote for someone else. But Biden isn't going to surrender the racist vote to Trump without a fight. All of those other things are much stronger than "racist," so Biden wants to draw a distinction between himself and other people on the left who lump literal KKK members in with people who made one insensitive remark under the label of "racist." Biden wants votes from the latter group. In this area, his political instincts are quite good.

---

Yes, Biden wants/expects votes from the people he almost called "racist fucks."

That makes perfect sense.

---

Bidens words about the Charlottesville racists were obviously intentionally crafted to imply almost swearing. There was no unfiltering there.

Nothing liberals love more than decorum
---

HashtagSEP posted...

Yes, Biden wants/expects votes from the people he almost called "racist fucks."

That makes perfect sense.

Not only does he want them, he'll get (some) of them.

---

That reminds me of something I wanted to say regarding a late post in the last topic.

There is nothing wrong with wanting "civility" and preferring a more concealed racist like Richard Spencer to the blatant and vocal racism of Donald Trump. With Spencer, the very fact that he feels the need to hide his true feelings behind a mask of civility and "proper" presentation is a win for decent human beings everywhere. It's an admission that his views are unpalatable and need to hide in order to gain acceptance. One of the biggest problems with Trump is that he's made racism mainstream and made it so that the racist fuckwads don't feel ashamed enough to hide their bigoted views from the rest of society.

Honestly, that's one of the primary reasons why any Democrat is better than any Republican for elected office. Even if our political system prevents almost any legislation from being passed due to the level of bullshit power held by the Senate, at least having a figurehead at the front of the country that WON'T blatantly pander to and empower racists might send them skittering back under the fridge like the cockroaches they are.

---

HashtagSEP posted...

Yes, Biden wants/expects votes from the people he almost called "racist fucks."

That makes perfect sense.

Eh, this shitty logic reminds me of "deplorables".

If you are not the one being a racist piece of shit, then he isn't talking about you.

If you are offended because you THINK he's talking about you, then you are admitting that you consider yourself a racist piece of shit and you are including yourself in the targeted group.

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Eh, this shitty logic reminds me of "deplorables".

If you are not the one being a racist piece of shit, then he isn't talking about you.

If you are offended because you THINK he's talking about you, then you are admitting that you consider yourself a racist piece of shit and you are including yourself in the targeted group.

Well, that's my point.

red sox's argument is that Biden is specifically trying to get the votes of self-admitted racists.

And so I'm questioning the logic behind "Biden wants the votes of self-admitted racists who he just intentionally almost called 'racist fucks.'"

---

Honestly I dont think that take holds water, Inviso

Trumps racism is much more concealed than Spencers. Spencers is just more eloquent, but there are no euphemisms or dog whistles.

Like maybe a better contrast of the types of racism youre trying to compare could be drawn between Trump and Tucker?
---

Yeah, the cognitive dissonance is too strong sometimes.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Like maybe a better contrast of the types of racism youre trying to compare could be drawn between Trump and Tucker?

Jakyl25 posted...

Honestly I dont think that take holds water, Inviso

Trumps racism is much more concealed than Spencers. Spencers is just more eloquent, but there are no euphemisms or dog whistles.

Like maybe a better contrast of the types of racism youre trying to compare could be drawn between Trump and Tucker?

Yeah, but Spencer is also trying so hard to come across as respectable that he really doesn't register at all. WE know who he is, because we're aware of this stuff, but he's largely irrelevant in reality. It's like how Stephen Miller is a blatant racist, but he's so far in the background that he needs his racism to be parroted by Trump in order to make a difference. Yes, Trump uses dogwhistles, but he uses those alongside blatant bullhorn racism. As do people like Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham and Fox News in general, who don't even have to go the Lee Atwater route of being "so abstract" anymore, because Trump has normalized open racism in this country.

---

heck of a trump interview on fox

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1271494590785355784

"I think the concept of chokeholds sounds so innocent, so perfect."

Also repeats that he has "done more for the black community than any president" except maybe Lincoln who he excludes but says Lincoln, "He did good although it's always questionable, you know, in other words, the end result" at which case the Fox interviewer, Harris Faulkner, cuts in with "But we are free."

https://twitter.com/igorvolsky/status/1271496802538262528

Faulkner asks him about "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" and specifically if he knew the origin. He starts saying it's a Philadelphia mayor and police commissioner when the Fox interview interjects and informs him it's from the racist Miami commissioner. Trump goes to "I think many people have said" and goes back the Philly guy he was starting to talk about - Frank Rizzo. Calls him "very tough." You will, of course, not be surprised to hear that Rizzo opposed desegregating schools, urged supporters to "vote white," and engaged in police brutality.

At another point he also suggests a lot of the protestors don't know why they're protesting and are just following the crowd.


---

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1271231985717923840?s=09

"They did not build it"

Who's gonna tell him?

---

Inviso posted...

That reminds me of something I wanted to say regarding a late post in the last topic.

There is nothing wrong with wanting "civility" and preferring a more concealed racist like Richard Spencer to the blatant and vocal racism of Donald Trump. With Spencer, the very fact that he feels the need to hide his true feelings behind a mask of civility and "proper" presentation is a win for decent human beings everywhere. It's an admission that his views are unpalatable and need to hide in order to gain acceptance. One of the biggest problems with Trump is that he's made racism mainstream and made it so that the racist fuckwads don't feel ashamed enough to hide their bigoted views from the rest of society.

Honestly, that's one of the primary reasons why any Democrat is better than any Republican for elected office. Even if our political system prevents almost any legislation from being passed due to the level of bullshit power held by the Senate, at least having a figurehead at the front of the country that WON'T blatantly pander to and empower racists might send them skittering back under the fridge like the cockroaches they are.

I'd actually argue concealing racism is often worse (until you reach the point of open lynchings or worse). When you hide racism behind a mask of civility, you can pass facially neutral laws that allow police & law enforcement to enforce them selectively and create huge racial disparities that moderate whites honestly don't give a shit about. Hidden attitudes will probably never change. When it's blatant, open, and obvious, moderates actually care and meaningful change can actually happen. Plus, it has the added benefit of letting you know exactly who the racists are. And they will get challenged publicly on it, with real consequences to their beliefs.

---

changmas posted...

I'd actually argue concealing racism is often worse (until you reach the point of open lynchings or worse). When you hide racism behind a mask of civility, you can pass facially neutral laws that allow police & law enforcement to enforce them selectively and create huge racial disparities that moderate whites honestly don't give a shit about. Hidden attitudes will probably never change. When it's blatant, open, and obvious, moderates actually care and meaningful change can actually happen. Plus, it has the added benefit of letting you know exactly who the racists are. And they will get challenged publicly on it, with real consequences to their beliefs.

Knowing who the open racists are doesn't mean a damn thing when they're able to operate with the same impunity as closeted racists.

---

Not just police & law enforcement either. Housing, public health, medical fields, etc. all have these racial disparities that go completely unchecked and unnoticed by the broader society.

---

Inviso posted...

Knowing who the open racists are doesn't mean a damn thing when they're able to operate with the same impunity as closeted racists.

But that's a different problem entirely.

---

The problem with the open racism world we live in now is they are essentially able to run recruitment campaigns full of misinformation and click bait style draw in.

Leafeon13N posted...

The problem with the open racism world we live in now is they are essentially able to run recruitment campaigns full of misinformation and click bait style draw in.

Now this I can agree with. But it's hard for me to believe that the people who are susceptible to these recruitment campaigns wouldn't still be racist in a "racism mask-on / civility" kind of society. I personally think the biggest difference is that there's way, way more outrage about racism in the "mask-off" version, and outrage is often necessary to effect change.

---

I guess I'm just worried that we're normalizing "mask-off" racism to the point where half the country doesn't even care about it anymore, and views it as innocuous as "mask-on" racism. How are we ever supposed to address underlying, systemic racism when more and more people are digging their heels into the dirt and denying open racism even exists?

---

Inviso posted...

I guess I'm just worried that we're normalizing "mask-off" racism to the point where half the country doesn't even care about it anymore, and views it as innocuous as "mask-on" racism. How are we ever supposed to address underlying, systemic racism when more and more people are digging their heels into the dirt and denying open racism even exists?

Half the country doesn't care about any kind of racism. And then another 30% or so only cares about mask-off racism, in my opinion. When you get that 30% on board, you've got the potential for real change. And it's why people like Amy Cooper or Riot Games exec Ron Johnson actually lose their jobs over these racist incidents.

When all racism is mask-on....racism just doesn't get addressed at all, except by a "radical" few who are drowned out. All the present day mask-off racists would just be mask-on racists, but they would hold even more positions of power than they do now because none of them got fired for being openly racist.

---

changmas posted...

Now this I can agree with. But it's hard for me to believe that the people who are susceptible to these recruitment campaigns wouldn't still be racist in a "racism mask-on / civility" kind of society. I personally think the biggest difference is that there's way, way more outrage about racism in the "mask-off" version, and outrage is often necessary to effect change.

Nah, you end up radicalizing people like Wang with certain wedge issues.

You have to think of it from the point that the end goal is to influence the younger generation. If they see racism as something you aren't supposed to have in society, eventually society will change to reflect that value. But if young people grow up around open racism it becomes harder to actually purge from society.

---

red13n posted...

Nah, you end up radicalizing people like Wang with certain wedge issues.

You have to think of it from the point that the end goal is to influence the younger generation. If they see racism as something you aren't supposed to have in society, eventually society will change to reflect that value. But if young people grow up around open racism it becomes harder to actually purge from society.

I disagree. I think what's most important is to maximize anti-racism (as opposed to non-racism). All that hiding away racism behind the masks of civility does is allows most people to hand-wave it away (e.g. "I'm not racist, so I'm not part of a problem"). But in this mask-off society, I think the younger generation is more anti-racist than it ever has been. And that's a direct consequence of having to interact and challenge racist beliefs on a daily or weekly basis.

---

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1271507569933049861

also

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1271493719749844992

Audio for the first one:
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1271499018233929728

---

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/06/12/868073068/transgender-health-protections-reversed-by-trump-administration

The best president for LGBTQ+ rights.

---

one hell of a Pride Month this year

---

https://i.redd.it/x1z9zrsl0j451.png

---

Inviso posted...

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/06/12/868073068/transgender-health-protections-reversed-by-trump-administration

The best president for LGBTQ+ rights.

Excuse me I have on very good authority he held a FLAG one time so how dare you.

---

Seems kind of short-sighted for the Obama ACA wording to say "sex" only and not gender or sexuality. Maybe I'm misreading the article, but it seems like that's what this hinges on

---

DeepsPraw posted...

Seems kind of short-sighted for the Obama ACA wording to say "sex" only and not gender or sexuality. Maybe I'm misreading the article, but it seems like that's what this hinges on

I mean, the thing is like 2000 pages long and most of the members of Congress who passed it never read it. If you want legislation that doesn't have flaws, loopholes, errors, etc. it's better to keep it short and simple so the people voting for it at least can fully understand what they are voting for and how to change it before voting.

---

DeepsPraw posted...

Seems kind of short-sighted for the Obama ACA wording to say "sex" only and not gender or sexuality.

It's not really short-sighted so much as it was a different time. They probably wouldn't have had the votes to pass the ACA if they'd done it that way. Back then, most elected Democrats were still publicly opposed to gay marriage and trans rights weren't even on the mainstream political radar.
---

Let's not forget they aren't just doing this during Pride Month, they are doing it on the anniversary of Pulse.

Fuck these stupid fucks.

---

No comment.

https://twitter.com/Complex/status/1271139286344249345?s=19

---

https://twitter.com/Jaaavis/status/1271551373591687170

Wow

It sounds like the VA Board of Elections can extend the deadline and I be surprised if they didn't, but still

---

...........................................................

https://forbes.com/sites/mattperez/2020/06/11/beautiful-trump-says-of-aggressive-tactics-used-on-minneapolis-protesters-including-tear-gas/

(On the dispersal of the protesters in Minneapolis)

"I'll never forget the scene, it's not supposed to be beautiful but to me it was... And yes there was some tear gas and probably some other things, and the crowd dispersed."

....................................................................
............................................................
......................................................

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

No comment.

https://twitter.com/Complex/status/1271139286344249345?s=19

The guy pulled a gun on someone, ran when the police got there and fought with police when they caught him when they put him in handcuffs. That quote was taken when he was still fighting before handcuffed and before the cops could you know, get the gun that he had away from him. The guy died from a collapsed lung from running/fighting the cops, like not really sure what you wanted them to do differently.

---

hockeydude15 posted...

The guy pulled a gun on someone, ran when the police got there and fought with police when they caught him when they put him in handcuffs. That quote was taken when he was still fighting before handcuffed and before the cops could you know, get the gun that he had away from him. The guy died from a collapsed lung from running/fighting the cops, like not really sure what you wanted them to do differently.

I dunno, get medical aid to a guy who says he can't breath?

In case you forgot, not only is he entitled to a fair trial, but none of the things you listed are punishable by death.

---

They did get him medical aid after he was cuffed. I mean just don't know what you wanted them to do, get off a uncuffed guy who just ran from police? Yea the guy didn't deserve to die but it isn't the cops fault he did unless you are of the opinion that they should have just let him run off to which is just lol.

---

https://twitter.com/billkristol/status/1271525432572227584?s=21

---

metaIslug posted...

So I was certain Biden was gonna obliterate Trump but now this autonomous zone is really making the protests look ridiculous. Trump is gonna have a field day

I dont think most voters who were up for grabs will associate CHAZ with the broader protests. Theyre just a bunch of fringe idiots.

---

What autonomous zone is this? And either way it was never certain that Biden would obliterate Trump. If anything until this year Trump was looking good for re-election before he decided to pander to his "base" of vile bigots. To think it took a freaking pandemic.

Is anyone actually excited for a Joe Biden presidency? Feels like most of that is just people who desperately want Trump to lose. Yeah I'm still sore about 2016.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/billkristol/status/1271525432572227584?s=21

yessssssssss this should've always gotten more use

like, every single time Lindsey opened up his damn mouth

*edit* oh god I just got to the Biden part, I remembered it but woof in context what a slam dunk

---

I do love that ad's strategy just because if it doesn't help Biden it might at least make Graham more unpopular with Trump supporters in SC!

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I do love that ad's strategy just because if it doesn't help Biden it might at least make Graham more unpopular with Trump supporters in SC!

2 for 1.

Wonder how Graham will respond to it.

---