Red Mosquito

Great replacement theory isn’t about immigration policy. It’s about attributing direct and existentially threatening purposes for that immigration to your political opponents. It’s about making voters feel personally attacked by the presence of people who are not like them.

You do not need to believe in shit like that to have a hardline immigration position or policy. You do not need to accuse your perceived political opponents of a malicious plan to replace “real” Americans with “obedient” foreigners, in order to sell reduced immigration as a talking point. These things cannot be conflated.

McParadigm wrote:

And there is no anti-immigration stance one can take

Pretend we are talking about immigration as policy, and not about a political apparatus adopting the line “your political rivals are sinisterly trying to replace you culturally and racially.”

How is this any more SINISTER than saying "your political rivals are nazis" or "your political rivals want to enslave women" or any of the other Z-grade talking points you are inundated with in the media you consume? Spare me your pearl-clutching bullshit. How is this somehow worse? Of course democrats are trying to replace Republicans culturally. That's what political parties are for lol. Democrat voters (and neoliberal capitalism) want more immigration. Dems wouldn't want more immigration if immigrants voted Republican. How is that racist? But to even say this obvious fact makes me racist, because I'm now a subscriber of Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory™, a buzzphrase parroted 99% by democrats. Anyone thinking democrats might be motivated by votes (edit: or changing America to embrace dem beliefs) is now a racist nazi who is creating mass murderers. Fuck. Off.

that you wouldn't consider racist or motivating to mass shooters.

Make an accusation, so the conversation becomes about me and not about the political adoption of a racist conspiracy theory. Do whatever you can to avoid talking about it.

You don't want to talk about it. The whole point is to prevent people from criticizing your stances.

McParadigm wrote: It’s about attributing direct and existentially threatening purposes for that immigration to your political opponents.

Wow. What the fuck is that like? What a totally unique phenomenon!

Up until this moment I had no idea Democrats thought Republican motivations were completely pure of heart and aren't motivated by power at all. Shame on Republicans for thinking Democrats might have ulterior motives.

busy weekend

3 shot outside Milwaukee Bucks game. Two hours later, 17 others are shot a few blocks away

macphisto wrote:

Where would one’s right and liberty to shop at a grocery fall in all of this? Seems like it’s fallen into the hands of the criminal, no?

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Where would one’s right and liberty to shop at a grocery fall in all of this? Seems like it’s fallen into the hands of the criminal, no?

Armed baggers would prevent this.

True. Thanks Lenny

BurtReynolds wrote:Up until this moment I had no idea Democrats thought Republican motivations were completely pure of heart and aren't motivated by power at all. Shame on Republicans for thinking Democrats might have ulterior motives.

In retrospect... you know... maybe... just speculating here... it might not be the best idea to constantly reframe every single social, political, economic, environmental, and educational issue as an existential conflict between races, because when you teach people to fear and hate each other this abject horror is what happens. We used to understand that.

Bi_3 wrote:
In retrospect... you know... maybe... just speculating here... it might not be the best idea to constantly reframe every single social, political, economic, environmental, and educational issue as an existential conflict between races

Yeah no kidding.

We still need to figure out how to guarantee safety at Christmas parades, and then we can move on to grocery stores.

But nobody needs to "reframe" this situation because the shooter told us all that he picked this spot because of race.

elliseamos wrote:But nobody needs to "reframe" this situation because the shooter told us all that he picked this spot because of race.

what page do you guys talk about banning body armor for civilians?

lennytheweedwhacker wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Where would one’s right and liberty to shop at a grocery fall in all of this? Seems like it’s fallen into the hands of the criminal, no?

Armed baggers would prevent this.

Yeah, where were all the responsible gun owners to save these people?

Uruguay?!

spike wrote:

lennytheweedwhacker wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Where would one’s right and liberty to shop at a grocery fall in all of this? Seems like it’s fallen into the hands of the criminal, no?

Armed baggers would prevent this.

Yeah, where were all the responsible gun owners to save these people?

Not at millennium park