Chilling

[Luce]

It's worth mentioning, though, that the right has been talking mad shit about the left since 1979.

So I am slightly less than sympathetic to calls for civility now.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Luce

It's worth mentioning, though, that the right has been talking mad shit about the left since 1979.

So I am slightly less than sympathetic to calls for civility now.

Which calls are not heard from our Democratic solons in the House at all. The best we've got is that Representative Jeffries has ceased his robotic recitals of Dem impeachment-speak, delivered dead-eyed and with the body language of one who no longer believes a word of what he's reciting, but recites as rehearsed nonetheless. No wonder people leave politics.

The concern for rights and liberties has not lain with the Left since about the mid 1950's. It dwells with the center-Right, which is about the biggest bloc American politics has. The left-leaners are a minority; the hard left is the abode of cranks, slavemongers, and believers in the anti-economics of Marxism. (One wonders what fortunes they might gain if they spent that degree of mental effort on earning a living and providing! -- as Marx did not.)

It's only the right that is concerned with civil rights these couple decades -- and the only ones in that time that seem actually to like them. Does the left advertise its devotion to rights? Certainly it does; gives them a great deal of lip service. But their advertising rings hollow when you see what it is that they claim as a right, and being shamefully denied -- this month. Three months ago they were advertising something else as an unfulfilled right. Theirs is the inconstancy of convenience; their ill-hidden agenda is to lord it over you, wherein they get the rights and you get bupkis.

Socialism is a bad religion, much hewed to by bad-religion sorts who seem to have been born evil, just evil. Perhaps we can only rid ourselves of such bad religion by treating the capital-S Socialists as the Cathars were.

But we still can out-argue these followers of the lesser, more enslaved, less free and liberal way. I do that to Bruce as often as I care to. He's not altogether a bloviating barrel-fish who's easy to shoot, which keeps it interesting, but there's a lot of my education in liberty that he profoundly lacks. Leaves him with a non-free statist mentality. I could recognize an attempt to play catch-up as an intelligent action; haven't seen one yet.

The arguments above about how Trump simply must be an evil cheater against motherhood, apple pie and the American way (uttered by poseurs who wouldn't know what that is) because, um, Trump -- fail to persuade. Note how abstract they are, how singularly and severally lacking in detail or corroboration: no names of the defrauded, no dates, no places, no amounts, no particular lawsuits specified. Indeed, not one of the people posting have been defrauded of anything. Just these opprobrious generalities that address more the utterer than his target. That isn't thought. It is mindless prejudice. Of course. It's the outpourings of personalities that are only the sum total of their resentments, which outpourings are analogous to toxic waste.

[Undertoad]

subset

half, she said

It was conservatives everyone who insisted that the term "deplorable" applied to all of them

FTFY

"all the time" / four years ago

We could find people tweeting it today with 15 second's worth of search

We could find much more and everybody in this thread knows it

[Happy Monkey]

She apologized for saying half, and then the conservatives insisted that it was all.

[Luce]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

She apologized for saying half, and then the conservatives insisted that it was all.

This is why you don't apologize to republicans for anything ever.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Luce

This is why you don't apologize to republicans for anything ever.

Apologize for your prejudice, Luce.

Are you, on the uncapitalized strength of "republicans" written just like that, perhaps a monarchist whose philosophy of governance is the divine right of kings? Such a sentence says you don't even make a syndicalist.

Exhibit thought, not shuck-and-jive.

What Happy Monkey is doing believing and being gratified by Washington's Least Convincing & Least Ethical Blonde remains to be explained.

[Luce]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Apologize for your prejudice, Luce.

LOL, no.

[Undertoad]

We could find much more and everybody in this thread knows it

[Flint]

I'm genuinely curious, let's hear some more examples of--

... a phrase that is more condescending than calling one subset of America "real America".

Nobody even needs to have said them--just, can you IMAGINE something more condescending than that?

[Undertoad]

Sub-human is more condescending than sub-American.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Sub-human is more condescending than sub-American.

Oof, that's one.

Key and Peele had a bit about a racist celebrity quote, referring to a "pack of [n-words]" and how saying "a pack of" was the worst part.

“Pack” is the most racist thing I’ve ever heard anyone say in my life.
I would rather someone say, “You got r*ped “by a group of ni**ers,” than “A pack of African-Americans went to a physics presentation.
” Yes, yes.
(laughter) - Right? - I would be less offended.

[Gravdigr]

Originally Posted by Flint

Oof, that's one.

Key and Peele had a bit about a racist celebrity quote, referring to a "pack of [n-words]" and how saying "a pack of" was the worst part.

I thought the dude what said it, used the word "tribe".

Mighta a different part of the quote.

[Happy Monkey]

Do you have any examples of sub-human? Or was that a response to Flint?

[Undertoad]

I don't have examples in this forum. A friend of mine has said sub-human and similar terms for his various enemies on the right. We can easily find them from both sides over time. It's the culture war in action

[BigV]

Good. Lord.