This week, both our winners on the insightful side come in response to the White House emailing its talking points to congressional Democrats, then trying to recall them. In first place, it’s Stephen T. Stone rightly keeping things grounded in the atrocious reality:
I wish I could laugh at the ineptitude of the Trump administration. Then I remember that several kids have died in American concentration camps. I don’t feel like laughing much after that.
‘Hey, your boss said it was okay…’
As an added bit of humor the democrats who received the email and the frantic attempt to get it back already have all the justification they need to keep it, from no less than Trump himself.
After all he was willing to say on national television that getting help/dirt on an opponent from a foreign source is perfectly fine by him, and if that’s acceptable then clearly getting embarrassing information from your political opponents and using it against them is absolutely fine.
Coral Ridge claims they are victims of defamation. What they want, however, is to express moral condemnation of others without others condemning Coral Ridge in turn. That isn’t just hypocrisy — it is asking for a special right.
You appear unaware of white nationalist rhetoric, somewhat strange given the president brought this rhetoric back into the national discourse less than 90 days ago.
White nationalist rhetoric, when they are trying to hide their racism, is to suggest that their opponents should go elsewhere. “Don’t like it, just leave” was literally a KKK slogan they put on billboards. Trump’s campaign was built on changing things he didn’t like to MAGA, referencing an ambiguous past time in which civil liberties for minorities are almost certainly curtailed, but has revived the KKK slogan against his minority critics and then applied it more generally. I won’t go into the history of racism in this language, it very much is.
Your commentary also suggests a failure to understand the history of nationalist and ethno nationalist movements and how they define the in group. When these movements need to build power, they open up the in group, for instance allowing in the Irish and Italian immigrants they had previously shunned. They will accept collaborators from the out group – particularly if it allows them to deflect criticism. But as they gain power they restrict the in group to ensure the power isn’t diluted. They define ‘nationality’ or ‘ethnicity’ in far more restrictive ways. (I.E. how the Irish weren’t considered white when famine lead to mass immigration)
The statement that someone who wants the “liberals” to go away made in response to a perceived “liberal” pushing for change while not in power holds deep historical racist connotations (Racism here referencing both ethnic and religious prejudices). But stating that the end goal of that statement is a white ethnostate is not claiming that there are no non-minority conservatives, only in recognition that having excluded “liberals” from the country, those conservatives who sought to exclude will need a new outgroup if they are to keep the reigns of power, and that given the demographics and racist undertones of the language used, conservative minorities (like socially conservative arabs) are likely the next targets of such language.
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is an anonymous commenter with a theory about Charter CEO Tom Rutledge’s hatred of streaming password sharing — maybe it’s personal:
Sounds like he’s pissed his kids are using his password and won’t get their own accounts.
In second place, it’s another anonymous commenter offering translation services to defuse a debate between Stephen Stone and another commenter:
Sorry Mr. Stone, but it looks like you miss understood what he said.
What he actually said (rendered in American English) was:
Behold! My Cognitive Dissonance!
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with Thad calling back to one of the stupidest arguments of all regarding folks who sue the SPLC:
Bafflingly, one particular anon suggested that Gavin McInnes was “innocent until proven guilty”.
And finally, it’s That One Guy again with a summary that hits home the insanity of a (failed) copyright fight over photos of Picasso works:
If people who don’t own the rights to pictures they didn’t create can’t sue people for millions thanks to some garbage called ‘fair use’ then what possible reason could the long-dead artist possibly have to create more works?
Way to utterly destroy even the possibility of zombie-Picasso making any new works there judge.
That’s all for this week, folks!