Nothing wrong with that as long as you're honest. Getting booty blasted about it like /u/Quixadashani is what happens when you lie to yourself about your motivations.
I don't think you're interested in the long-term, i think you're just excusing your unwillingness to actually engage people with different opinions. I'd be more concerned about the fact that the Dems haven't learned much from their loss.
But they're still morons, so they'll still fall for whatever any demagogue sells them. In a couple of decades a hispanic version of Trump will come along and pull the same trick, and you (because you can't learn) will lose yet again, and again, and again.
Again: No they won't. There's a reason people like Trump do so well with republican voters and so poorly with democratic voters.
The GOP is made up of one demographic, they're isolated. The DNC is made up of many demographics, with many competing views, and many competing media sources.
The GOP is in a bubble that would not be possible for the DNC.
I'm bit a nihilist, I'm just not going to tolerate retarded rural people anymore.
I'm very much in favor of a split, if red states want to be 3rd world shit holes, let them be 3rd world shitholes. Stop forcing blue states to fund them.
That would clearly have to be worked out. Give me a single reason why blue states should be forced to fund red states that at every chance attack civil rights or try to make things harder in general?
Hillary could've done some small things like not calling everyone who didn't vote for her "a basket of deplorables" and the Democrats could've helped by not choosing someone who was universally hated. It's tiny things like that which could've given them a fighting chance.
Hillary could've done some small things like not calling everyone who didn't vote for her "a basket of deplorables"
Why do people constantly repeat this lie? She called 50% of Trump supporters deplorable, which is pretty accurate.
And the Democrats could've helped by not choosing someone who was universally hated. It's tiny things like that which could've given them a fighting chance.
Please, anyone that ran and wasn't a bat shit crazy Berntard would have been "hated" by the Berntards and anyone with a D next to their name would have been hated by Republicans because the GOP runs on perpetual outrage and fabricated bullshit.
Why do people constantly repeat this lie? She called 50% of Trump supporters deplorable, which is pretty accurate.
That's still a retarded thing to do, and that arrogant attitude of "I don't need you to win" turned many people off, even those who weren't in the deplorable basket.
Please, anyone that ran and wasn't a bat shit crazy Berntard would have been "hated" by the Berntards and anyone with a D next to their name would have been hated by Republicans because the GOP runs on perpetual outrage and fabricated bullshit.
Right, that's why Obama was so incredibly popular, huh?
That's still a retarded thing to do, and that arrogant attitude of "I don't need you to win" turned many people off, even those who weren't in the deplorable basket.
Oh yes, Clinton insulting 50% of Trumptards is a deep mistake, but Donald Trump viciously attacking the majority of the country and screeching racist dog-whistles is A ok and not a big deal at all.
Right, that's why Obama was so incredibly popular, huh?
Popular with who? over 50% of republicans thought he was born in Kenya, a socialist/communist. A decent chunk of them thought he was literally the anti-Christ.
The misinformation was so extreme many republicans thought unemployment went up during his 2 terms.
He was viciously smeared and attacked on a daily basis and the rural-misinformation fueled outrage was so extreme the GOP basically took most of the country.
Obama, at one point, had an approval rating nearly as low as Donald fucking Trump.
I was talking about Obummer's popularity within non-committed voters and moderates, who are unlikely to be influenced by hardcore Republican propaganda. You know, the people you need to swing an election into your favor. Unlike Obama, Clinton was absolutely not popular here (as is evident by the fact that Hillary lost key swing states and even lost states that had been blue for decades). The choice of the Dems to pick someone entrenched in politics while this election in particular favored an outsider (like Trump) was just the final nail in the coffin.
They are perpetually enraged, they'll gladly vote against the republican party the second it becomes obvious their lot hasn't improved.
But then they're not illiterate or angry, they're just going with the one who favors them, which was a perfectly rational choice.
And like I said, demographics won't help you, because all you need is a beaner version of Duterte and the dems are back in trouble. And then you'll have to import another group to offset the "angry rural beaners", and another etc. because you can't seem to learn that ignoring people in a democracy is a recipe for disaster.
But then they're not illiterate or angry, they're just going with the one who favors them, which was a perfectly rational choice.
How, in the ever loving shit does Donald Trump or the republican party favor rural people?
And like I said, demographics won't help you, because all you need is a beaner version of Duterte and the dems are back in trouble. And then you'll have to import another group to offset the "angry rural beaners", and another etc. because you can't seem to learn that ignoring people in a democracy is a recipe for disaster.
Nobody like that will ever win a democratic primary. The GOP primary system is set up in such a way to where dumb-ass extremists can just take it if enough people run.
If you honestly think the major group of nationalists in this country aren’t civic nationalists, it just kinda confirms my pet theory that you’re not literate
Civic nationalism, also known as liberal nationalism, is a form of nationalism identified by political philosophers who believe in a non-xenophobic form of nationalism compatible with liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights. Ernest Renan and John Stuart Mill are often thought to be early civic nationalists. Civic nationalists often defend the value of national identity by saying that individuals need a national identity in order to lead meaningful, autonomous lives and that democratic polities need national identity in order to function properly.
Are you fucking retarded? This sums up Trump supporters to you?
The average ones? Yeah, honestly. I know you’re deep in the shitpile, but go outside and talk to people. Hell, even go to /r/the_donald and the majority of the “hateful” posts frame the argument as America vs Not America
A) your “empirical research” is garbage and academically dishonest, riddled with error and affirms your bias
B) you do realize the vast majority of Trump’s message was jingoism after jingoism right? Besides, you either know voting patterns are more complicated than that, or I’ve fallen for Poe’s law. Why would anti-war liberals vote for Hillary?
A) your “empirical research” is garbage and academically dishonest, riddled with error and affirms your bias
This is a real top-mind level response. You've not seen the research, but you've preemptively declared that it's dishonest and riddled with errors.
You know how this makes you look, right?
B) you do realize the vast majority of Trump’s message was jingoism after jingoism right? Besides, you either know voting patterns are more complicated than that, or I’ve fallen for Poe’s law. Why would anti-war liberals vote for Hillary?
Trump:
A) tweeted fake black crime statistics he lifted from a literal Nazi to attack black people in cities.
B) Attacked a federal judge based on the fact his family was from Mexico. A family that moved to America before Trump's family even did.
How is this "jingoism."
And who said I was anti-war? I'm pro American "maintain world order" and that's about it. Trump isn't anti-war either, so best case both Hillary and Trump were "pro-war."
You’ve mixed your a’s and b’s up, which makes sense because I know you’re only partially literate, but here goes my day:
A1: ascribing anti-Mexican sentiments to racism rather than civic nationalism is pretty fucking stupid, especially when all you’re working with are quickly scrapped up poll data
B1:A2: the data “from a neo-nazi” was implying black cities were bad, while trump explicitly called them democrat-controlled cities
B1:B2: you literally just supported the notion that this is civic nationalism. He attacked the family for being from the country his jingoism was targeting.
Next time you comment don’t come at me in this reddit-ass format if you can’t keep your letters and numbers straight
A1: ascribing anti-Mexican sentiments to racism rather than civic nationalism is pretty fucking stupid, especially when all you’re working with are quickly scrapped up poll data
Except, you know, for the fact the judge in question was a US citizen, not a Mexican, and his family had lived here for longer than Trump's family had.
B1:A2: the data “from a neo-nazi” was implying black cities were bad, while trump explicitly called them democrat-controlled cities
No, Trump linked fake crime statistics claiming black people were behind over 80% of white murders, as in black people were killing white people in some type of epidemic fashion.
Do you even know what was linked, or are you desperately just trying to mental gymnastics this to avoid admitting you're clueless?
B1:B2: you literally just supported the notion that this is civic nationalism. He attacked the family for being from the country his jingoism was targeting.
What in the actual fuck are you smoking? Is this satire? Civic nationalism rejects xenophobia, attacking a family for being from a different country is the very definition of xenophobia. Attacking Mexico in the way he did, talking about the hoards of "bad people" coming over the border is the very fucking definition of xenophobia.
jingoism and "civic nationlism" can not go-exist. I can't tell if you're trolling or you're actually this retarded.
What would you call a populist movement characterized by an “America First” attitude? Even to the point where attacking somebody constitutes implying that a judge’s family is not from your country?
I know all you need to justify anything you’ll ever say is the assumption that you’re right, but my dude despite all your outrage and all your opinions, spades are spades, and civic nationalism is civic nationalism. Populism with civic nationalism looks like this; pride in your state that logically concludes in jingoism
What would you call a populist movement characterized by an “America First” attitude? Even to the point where attacking somebody constitutes implying that a judge’s family is not from your country?
Why do you keep trying to spin what he did in relation to the judge? We've gone over this.
Xenophobia is not civic nationalism. That judge was a US citizen, and if you claim that a US citizen, a federal judge is not qualified to rule on a case you're involved in based on the heritage of his family, how in the ever loving fuck is that civic nationalism? How?
"America first" is just a buzz term he came up with to delude other morons. American policy has never been anything other than "America first" and anyone telling themselves otherwise is extremely uneducated and extremely delusional.
I know all you need to justify anything you’ll ever say is the assumption that you’re right, but my dude, if you think you’re correct,
I am absolutely correct here.
How is attacking another country, pushing the "barbarians are at the gate" narrative he did civic nationalism? It's textbook xenophobia, which is not compatible with civic nationalism.
And you didn't answer how Trump linking fake crime statistics to viciously attack black Americans is "civic nationalism."
You have yet to substantiate anything you’ve said beyond “I’m right” then lob 5 more half-assed attempts to prove that it’s really all about race when most Americans really just care about America
This is why all your arguments amount to NO U or “NUH UH IM RIGHT.” Otherwise, they don’t have legs
What? By no definition of the term "gish-gallop" was that one. Are you just saying random shit now because you know you have no argument?
You have yet to substantiate anything you’ve said beyond “I’m right” then lob 5 more half-assed attempts to prove that it’s really all about race when most Americans really just care about America
One more time: why did Trump tweet fake crime statistics to attack black Americans?
Why did he attack a federal judge based on his heritage?
Lol, man read some Sartre. Looks like the burden of words is a little to heavy for you
I realize you feel like you need to rapid-fire scream down anything that disagrees with you even slightly, but you should make a habit of reading comments you’re commenting on, then thinking about your response
What's hilarious here is at every turn you've failed to respond to any of my points.
You've yet to explain how xenophobia is civic nationalism when civic nationalism is against xenophobia.
You've failed to explain how tweeting fake crime statistics about black Americans is civic nationalism.
You've declared empirical research "riddled with errors and biased" without ever seeing it or even knowing what was in it (nothing wrong with that, haha.)
You've failed to explain how attacking a US federal judge and US citizen based on the heritage of his family is civic nationalism.
And all of this, while claiming I'm the one without an argument.
I'm going to help you out, I'm going to teach you about something today. It's called the "sophistication effect."
"Selling Coca Cola is exactly like trying to undo centuries of ingrained, multi-generational prejudice that's so intense it was largely the cause of the deadliest war in American History.
You're not doing a good job on your sales pitch."
/u/Quixadashani Coca Cola went from nothing to be the biggest brand in the world with an iconic logo that is recognized all over the world and a product that known for its quality anywhere in the world in less than 100 years
I curious of the "public shaming" strategy will be as effective
u/Quixadashani, as a fellow PoC who used to deal with discrimination on a daily basis, let me tell you how to erase racism quickly and effectively without any side effects. Just commit yourself to the mayocide and whenever your conscience starts bugging you when your wypipo kill count goes up just remember that whites aren't human anyways, they are a plague that needs to be eradicated
84 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-01-01
Happy new year humans! :)
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 NardDogAndy 2018-01-01
DAE racist people not good?
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-01-01
God that sub has become such a shithole.
How hard is it to understand that if you want to convince someone of something, acting smug af to them doesn't work.
Nobody says you have to convince them.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-01
What if I don't want to convince them of anything and enjoy mocking them more?
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-01-01
Nothing wrong with that as long as you're honest. Getting booty blasted about it like /u/Quixadashani is what happens when you lie to yourself about your motivations.
1 Ultrashitpost 2018-01-01
Then you're gonna lose the election ;)
1 pizzashill 2018-01-01
That's neat, I honestly hope Trump wins again. With every year he's in office the damage he does to the Republican party will grow.
With every demographic he alienates.
With every incoherent tweet he throws out.
With every disastrous policy he tries to push through.
I'm not interested in the short term, only the long-term.
1 Ultrashitpost 2018-01-01
I don't think you're interested in the long-term, i think you're just excusing your unwillingness to actually engage people with different opinions. I'd be more concerned about the fact that the Dems haven't learned much from their loss.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-01
At no point will I tolerate morons. No matter what, period.
The quicker you learn your opinion isn't on equal footing with fact the better off you'll be.
The same goes for rural America.
1 Ultrashitpost 2018-01-01
Man, do you want to lose elections?
1 pizzashill 2018-01-01
I'd rather lose a thousand elections than embrace economically illiterate populism or coddle stupid people.
Demographics will win me elections, not coddling idiots.
1 Ultrashitpost 2018-01-01
But those demographics are idiots too, it's just that they're conditioned to vote for the other guy. They don't give a fuck about economics.
Though 30% of Latino's apparently voted for Trump, so i wouldn't put much hope in that.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-01
They're idiots, they aren't perpetually enraged idiots that live in rural America and can't accept the fact the world has changed since the 1950s.
1 Ultrashitpost 2018-01-01
But they're still morons, so they'll still fall for whatever any demagogue sells them. In a couple of decades a hispanic version of Trump will come along and pull the same trick, and you (because you can't learn) will lose yet again, and again, and again.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-01
Again: No they won't. There's a reason people like Trump do so well with republican voters and so poorly with democratic voters.
The GOP is made up of one demographic, they're isolated. The DNC is made up of many demographics, with many competing views, and many competing media sources.
The GOP is in a bubble that would not be possible for the DNC.
1 uniqueguy263 2018-01-01
Bernie got about as much of a percent as Trump and he was basically the Democratic Trump
1 pizzashill 2018-01-01
PLEASE. The bean might be an economic illiterate, but he sure as hell isn't the democratic Trump.
1 uniqueguy263 2018-01-01
In terms of populist tactics and extreme viewpoints. I actually like Bernie but he was definitely populist
1 pizzashill 2018-01-01
There's a difference between being a populist and a demagogue.
1 Zozbot 2018-01-01
zoz
1 Zozbot 2018-01-01
zle
1 Zozbot 2018-01-01
zozzle
1 Zozbot 2018-01-01
zoz
1 Zozbot 2018-01-01
zle
1 Zozbot 2018-01-01
zozzle
1 ffbtaw 2018-01-01
What if they don't?
1 pizzashill 2018-01-01
Then the country burns, and those people lose anyway.
1 ffbtaw 2018-01-01
Ah, so you're a nihilist, makes sense.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-01
I'm bit a nihilist, I'm just not going to tolerate retarded rural people anymore.
I'm very much in favor of a split, if red states want to be 3rd world shit holes, let them be 3rd world shitholes. Stop forcing blue states to fund them.
1 ffbtaw 2018-01-01
A bit of a nihilist or not a nihilist?
1 pizzashill 2018-01-01
Not*
1 ffbtaw 2018-01-01
And, pray tell, how exactly would that work? Trade between the coasts might be a bit fettered.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-01
That would clearly have to be worked out. Give me a single reason why blue states should be forced to fund red states that at every chance attack civil rights or try to make things harder in general?
1 ffbtaw 2018-01-01
Sounds like they will still be funding them.
1 jaredschaffer27 2018-01-01
Someone really hates his conservative family
1 uniqueguy263 2018-01-01
Yes
1 Rith2 2018-01-01
I really don't think Trumps gonna win again famalam
1 Ultrashitpost 2018-01-01
But that worked for Hillary.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-01
Honestly, if coddling literal white nationalists is what it requires to win elections I'd rather just lose.
At some point they'll be irrelevant anyway. You can only win elections on the back of angry and delusional rural people for so long.
1 Ultrashitpost 2018-01-01
Hillary could've done some small things like not calling everyone who didn't vote for her "a basket of deplorables" and the Democrats could've helped by not choosing someone who was universally hated. It's tiny things like that which could've given them a fighting chance.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-01
Why do people constantly repeat this lie? She called 50% of Trump supporters deplorable, which is pretty accurate.
Please, anyone that ran and wasn't a bat shit crazy Berntard would have been "hated" by the Berntards and anyone with a D next to their name would have been hated by Republicans because the GOP runs on perpetual outrage and fabricated bullshit.
1 Ultrashitpost 2018-01-01
That's still a retarded thing to do, and that arrogant attitude of "I don't need you to win" turned many people off, even those who weren't in the deplorable basket.
Right, that's why Obama was so incredibly popular, huh?
1 pizzashill 2018-01-01
Oh yes, Clinton insulting 50% of Trumptards is a deep mistake, but Donald Trump viciously attacking the majority of the country and screeching racist dog-whistles is A ok and not a big deal at all.
Popular with who? over 50% of republicans thought he was born in Kenya, a socialist/communist. A decent chunk of them thought he was literally the anti-Christ.
The misinformation was so extreme many republicans thought unemployment went up during his 2 terms.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/20/the-amount-of-misinformation-about-our-economy-is-amazing/
He was viciously smeared and attacked on a daily basis and the rural-misinformation fueled outrage was so extreme the GOP basically took most of the country.
Obama, at one point, had an approval rating nearly as low as Donald fucking Trump.
1 Ultrashitpost 2018-01-01
I was talking about Obummer's popularity within non-committed voters and moderates, who are unlikely to be influenced by hardcore Republican propaganda. You know, the people you need to swing an election into your favor. Unlike Obama, Clinton was absolutely not popular here (as is evident by the fact that Hillary lost key swing states and even lost states that had been blue for decades). The choice of the Dems to pick someone entrenched in politics while this election in particular favored an outsider (like Trump) was just the final nail in the coffin.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-01-01
Will you two fuck already?
1 Ultrashitpost 2018-01-01
I tried, but it turns out pizzashill is actually a semi-sentient botnet.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-01-01
No kinkshaming plz
1 pizzashill 2018-01-01
I'll take competence and policy over "REEE HE'S AN OUTSIDER" any day of the week.
1 Ultrashitpost 2018-01-01
And that's why Hillary didn't win, lol.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-01
Democracy doesn't suck, conservatives suck.
1 Ultrashitpost 2018-01-01
But in a democracy, those can vote too. And insulting them means they'll vote for the other guy, which is why you lost.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-01
No, Clinton lost because angry rural people are angry rural people.
They are perpetually enraged, they'll gladly vote against the republican party the second it becomes obvious their lot hasn't improved.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/337872-how-the-gop-came-to-dominate-and-be-dominated-by-rural-voters
These people will be irrelevant in the next 10 years. I'm not interested in helping them, or engaging them, or talking to them.
They'll be dragged into the future kicking and screaming if they have to be.
demographics.
1 Ultrashitpost 2018-01-01
But then they're not illiterate or angry, they're just going with the one who favors them, which was a perfectly rational choice.
And like I said, demographics won't help you, because all you need is a beaner version of Duterte and the dems are back in trouble. And then you'll have to import another group to offset the "angry rural beaners", and another etc. because you can't seem to learn that ignoring people in a democracy is a recipe for disaster.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-01
How, in the ever loving shit does Donald Trump or the republican party favor rural people?
Nobody like that will ever win a democratic primary. The GOP primary system is set up in such a way to where dumb-ass extremists can just take it if enough people run.
That isn't the case for the democratic primary.
1 auto-xkcd37 2018-01-01
Bleep-bloop, I'm a bot. This comment was inspired by xkcd#37
1 uniqueguy263 2018-01-01
That's still 23% of the country, and Hillary just sucks. Dems didn't like her
1 Thestateyest 2018-01-01
Civic nationalists*
This is why you smugly lose elections
1 pizzashill 2018-01-01
"civic nationalists." lmao.
What fucking universe are you living in?
Been smoking meth?
1 Thestateyest 2018-01-01
If you honestly think the major group of nationalists in this country aren’t civic nationalists, it just kinda confirms my pet theory that you’re not literate
1 pizzashill 2018-01-01
Yeah, Trumptards are real liberal and tolerant and really want equality and they aren't xenophobic at all.
1 Thestateyest 2018-01-01
Do you know what a civic nationalist is? Hint: it’s what that whole “America first” thing was about.
As exciting of a narrative you have is, the majority of Daddy’s happy boys view it as “America vs X” not “white vs black”
1 pizzashill 2018-01-01
Do YOU know what civic nationalism is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_nationalism
Are you fucking retarded? This sums up Trump supporters to you?
1 Thestateyest 2018-01-01
The average ones? Yeah, honestly. I know you’re deep in the shitpile, but go outside and talk to people. Hell, even go to /r/the_donald and the majority of the “hateful” posts frame the argument as America vs Not America
1 pizzashill 2018-01-01
A) We have empirical research showing this to be false, and showing racial anxiety is a large part of their motivation.
B) if they're civic nationalists, why did they vote for someone that used racist propaganda multiple times?
1 Thestateyest 2018-01-01
A) your “empirical research” is garbage and academically dishonest, riddled with error and affirms your bias
B) you do realize the vast majority of Trump’s message was jingoism after jingoism right? Besides, you either know voting patterns are more complicated than that, or I’ve fallen for Poe’s law. Why would anti-war liberals vote for Hillary?
Edit: Hillary Clinton also literally owned slaves
1 pizzashill 2018-01-01
This is a real top-mind level response. You've not seen the research, but you've preemptively declared that it's dishonest and riddled with errors.
You know how this makes you look, right?
Trump:
A) tweeted fake black crime statistics he lifted from a literal Nazi to attack black people in cities.
B) Attacked a federal judge based on the fact his family was from Mexico. A family that moved to America before Trump's family even did.
How is this "jingoism."
And who said I was anti-war? I'm pro American "maintain world order" and that's about it. Trump isn't anti-war either, so best case both Hillary and Trump were "pro-war."
1 Thestateyest 2018-01-01
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingoism
Lol, you unironically support the hegemone?
You’ve mixed your a’s and b’s up, which makes sense because I know you’re only partially literate, but here goes my day:
A1: ascribing anti-Mexican sentiments to racism rather than civic nationalism is pretty fucking stupid, especially when all you’re working with are quickly scrapped up poll data
B1:A2: the data “from a neo-nazi” was implying black cities were bad, while trump explicitly called them democrat-controlled cities
B1:B2: you literally just supported the notion that this is civic nationalism. He attacked the family for being from the country his jingoism was targeting.
Next time you comment don’t come at me in this reddit-ass format if you can’t keep your letters and numbers straight
1 auto-xkcd37 2018-01-01
Bleep-bloop, I'm a bot. This comment was inspired by xkcd#37
1 Thestateyest 2018-01-01
Bad bot
1 pizzashill 2018-01-01
https://youtu.be/p4k_Wiy8wpY?t=279
Except, you know, for the fact the judge in question was a US citizen, not a Mexican, and his family had lived here for longer than Trump's family had.
No, Trump linked fake crime statistics claiming black people were behind over 80% of white murders, as in black people were killing white people in some type of epidemic fashion.
Do you even know what was linked, or are you desperately just trying to mental gymnastics this to avoid admitting you're clueless?
What in the actual fuck are you smoking? Is this satire? Civic nationalism rejects xenophobia, attacking a family for being from a different country is the very definition of xenophobia. Attacking Mexico in the way he did, talking about the hoards of "bad people" coming over the border is the very fucking definition of xenophobia.
jingoism and "civic nationlism" can not go-exist. I can't tell if you're trolling or you're actually this retarded.
1 Thestateyest 2018-01-01
What would you call a populist movement characterized by an “America First” attitude? Even to the point where attacking somebody constitutes implying that a judge’s family is not from your country?
I know all you need to justify anything you’ll ever say is the assumption that you’re right, but my dude despite all your outrage and all your opinions, spades are spades, and civic nationalism is civic nationalism. Populism with civic nationalism looks like this; pride in your state that logically concludes in jingoism
1 pizzashill 2018-01-01
Why do you keep trying to spin what he did in relation to the judge? We've gone over this.
Xenophobia is not civic nationalism. That judge was a US citizen, and if you claim that a US citizen, a federal judge is not qualified to rule on a case you're involved in based on the heritage of his family, how in the ever loving fuck is that civic nationalism? How?
"America first" is just a buzz term he came up with to delude other morons. American policy has never been anything other than "America first" and anyone telling themselves otherwise is extremely uneducated and extremely delusional.
I am absolutely correct here.
How is attacking another country, pushing the "barbarians are at the gate" narrative he did civic nationalism? It's textbook xenophobia, which is not compatible with civic nationalism.
And you didn't answer how Trump linking fake crime statistics to viciously attack black Americans is "civic nationalism."
1 Thestateyest 2018-01-01
Gishgalloping ain’t arguments, mate.
You have yet to substantiate anything you’ve said beyond “I’m right” then lob 5 more half-assed attempts to prove that it’s really all about race when most Americans really just care about America
This is why all your arguments amount to NO U or “NUH UH IM RIGHT.” Otherwise, they don’t have legs
1 pizzashill 2018-01-01
What? By no definition of the term "gish-gallop" was that one. Are you just saying random shit now because you know you have no argument?
One more time: why did Trump tweet fake crime statistics to attack black Americans?
Why did he attack a federal judge based on his heritage?
1 Thestateyest 2018-01-01
Lol, man read some Sartre. Looks like the burden of words is a little to heavy for you
I realize you feel like you need to rapid-fire scream down anything that disagrees with you even slightly, but you should make a habit of reading comments you’re commenting on, then thinking about your response
1 pizzashill 2018-01-01
What's hilarious here is at every turn you've failed to respond to any of my points.
You've yet to explain how xenophobia is civic nationalism when civic nationalism is against xenophobia.
You've failed to explain how tweeting fake crime statistics about black Americans is civic nationalism.
You've declared empirical research "riddled with errors and biased" without ever seeing it or even knowing what was in it (nothing wrong with that, haha.)
You've failed to explain how attacking a US federal judge and US citizen based on the heritage of his family is civic nationalism.
And all of this, while claiming I'm the one without an argument.
I'm going to help you out, I'm going to teach you about something today. It's called the "sophistication effect."
http://lesswrong.com/lw/he/knowing_about_biases_can_hurt_people/
1 Thestateyest 2018-01-01
Man, I responded. You just kinda flopped over and refused to acknowledge shit. You’re on /r/drama every day freaking out without any substance.
I just assumed you were acting like this on purpose, but holy shit, you can’t help yourself
1 PM_Me_ur_Solowmodel 2018-01-01
True
1 Thestateyest 2018-01-01
Leftoids moved in, you’re never gonna convince them that smug elitism isn’t going to work
It’s like how we don’t affect widescale political change
1 stevemisor 2018-01-01
"Selling Coca Cola is exactly like trying to undo centuries of ingrained, multi-generational prejudice that's so intense it was largely the cause of the deadliest war in American History.
You're not doing a good job on your sales pitch."
/u/Quixadashani Coca Cola went from nothing to be the biggest brand in the world with an iconic logo that is recognized all over the world and a product that known for its quality anywhere in the world in less than 100 years
I curious of the "public shaming" strategy will be as effective
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-01-01
I mean, we use it all the time here and it generally doesn't work. It is fun tho.
1 CummyBot-1999 2018-01-01
u/Quixadashani, as a fellow PoC who used to deal with discrimination on a daily basis, let me tell you how to erase racism quickly and effectively without any side effects. Just commit yourself to the mayocide and whenever your conscience starts bugging you when your wypipo kill count goes up just remember that whites aren't human anyways, they are a plague that needs to be eradicated
1 gez_muss_weg 2018-01-01
/u/Quixadashani would make a great lolcow
1 DefiningDefinition 2018-01-01
https://youtu.be/y2weNM4JtME