Frequent_Anybody2984
No bio...
User ID: 2655
Frequent_Anybody2984
1yr ago
If you were to really deal with the totality of the truth about these men, you would either have to abandon them or abandon your other beliefs. And since you can’t imagine any third position other than “the Founders were racist, and that makes them evil and this country illegitimate” and “the Founders were not racist, which is the reason this country isn’t evil or illegitimate” you’re forced to just lie and obfuscate.
I couldn't agree more here. Their world view is basically if the 1619 project was DR3. The funny thing is that the 1619 project is actually a more realistic view of US history because at least they acknowledge that the US and Europeans did often treat non-whites very poorly and that those actions were every popular at the time. From the responses below, I kept asking him who the real racists were that the real Patriotic Americans were fighting against in a quest for equality in the 1960's and apparently like today it was only the Democrats and white progressives:
You ask me who were the people on the opposite side of the CRA debate, and my reply is the same people who are supporting segregation today, namely college-educated white democrats. The specific terminology they use to justify their beliefs might change, but the substance of those beliefs (racial segregation, mob justice, and various flavors of Marxist nonsense) hasn't.
Frequent_Anybody2984
1yr ago
It's pretty disingenuous to compare what modern progressives are doing (which I hate btw) to previous racial policies in the South.
Frequent_Anybody2984
1yr ago
So the "woke" left today full of non-white people has the same ideology as the people running the Jim Crow South?
Frequent_Anybody2984
1yr ago
He thinks they are the same
You ask me who were the people on the opposite side of the CRA debate, and my reply is the same people who are supporting segregation today, namely college-educated white democrats. The specific terminology they use to justify their beliefs might change, but the substance of those beliefs (racial segregation, mob justice, and various flavors of Marxist nonsense) hasn't.
Frequent_Anybody2984
1yr ago
The founding fathers never intended for this country to be populated with majority non-whites. This isn't debatable.
You claimed that founding fathers allowed slavery and I replied the issue was a bit more complicated than that.
How was it more complicated? They allowed it. Everything is complicated so that is a ridiculous "argument".
You ask me who were the people on the opposite side of the CRA debate, and my reply is the same people who are supporting segregation today
Wait so the woke left and Marxists were running the Jim Crow South? You are delusional. Today I learned that George Wallace was the same as the college educated democrats today just the "terms" are different.
Frequent_Anybody2984
1yr ago
They are doing a giga DR3 and implying the American Right and Red Tribe were apparently never racist. I'm just trying to get them to admit that's what they are doing.
Frequent_Anybody2984
1yr ago
You didn't respond to anything I asked you. This is just a rambling about things that apparently annoy you.
Were George Wallace and Strom Thurmond members of the woke left? Are you denying that conservative whites, especially in the South, were deeply racist until very recently? David Duke almost won in Louisiana in the 1980s.
Who were these people in the Jim Crow South voting for it? Did the woke left travel back in time and vote in those elections or did every Southern state except Texas in 1968 vote for Republicans or a segregationist after the CRA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_United_States_presidential_election
The coalition of business-owners and conservative Christians that originally backed the civil rights act and ultimately defeated segregation was largely Republican and has remained so
Were the people on the opposite side of this debate? The woke left? Were the woke left the ones beating black protesters here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_to_Montgomery_marches#%22Bloody_Sunday%22_events
Frequent_Anybody2984
1yr ago
LA was a majority white city until fairly recently. Whites were ethnically cleansed from LA by mass 3rd world immigration after WW2. These nonwhite people are a big reason for the way CA is. They certainly aren't voting for any Republicans.
The appropriate Vietnamese culture without any desire to be part of the Vietnamese
This is hilarious . Whites are supposed to integrate into parallel immigrant communities who arrived 2 generations ago?
Frequent_Anybody2984
1yr ago
They literally restricted immigration to white people and allowed slavery. This is also there for all to read. More recently, were George Wallace and Strom Thurmond members of the woke left? Are you denying that conservative whites, especially in the South, were deeply racist until very recently? David Duke almost won in Louisiana in the 1980s!
Frequent_Anybody2984
1yr ago
The founding Fathers were white nationalists. This is nonsensical and extremely online. I hope you are trolling with this take. Segregation ended only 60 years ago.
Frequent_Anybody2984
1yr ago
I feel like you're expecting me to give you some kind of answer you can pounce on. What I said above is how I feel and if you disagree that's on you.
Frequent_Anybody2984
1yr ago
I think there are 3 types of California transplants. There's the libs who are leaving because it's too expensive and they try to turn their new place into CA. There's the opposite of this which are conservatives leaving CA who are very critical of CA and happy to be in a Red State. Then there's people like me who moved for a job and don't really care about the local politics because we don't plan on staying long (this is me).
I thing there's also a post apocalyptic Baudrillard type scenario for the libs in these scenarios where they want to be authentic and fit in but they end up creating a simulacra of the tradition without any of the gross and icky historical baggage. It's very off putting for anyone who remembers what it was actually like.
Frequent_Anybody2984
1yr ago
There's not a lot of human capital in Haiti since it's literally the poorest and least developed country in the Western Hemisphere, so I wouldn't prioritize them just because they speak French. If I'm going to take in immigrants, I'm going to prioritize young, educated people that have skills my country needs.
Frequent_Anybody2984
1yr ago
What are the chances of any of the hostages coming home? I just saw this on CNN (it won't let me link the article since it's a stream of updates):
An 80-year-old Israeli-American and her 13-year-old granddaughter, who were both kidnapped by Hamas militants from their kibbutz on October 7, have been found dead, the family told CNN on Thursday.
The Israel Defense Forces confirmed the deaths of Carmela Dan and Noya Dan to family on Wednesday, according to Jason Greenberg, a relative who lives in Massachusetts.
“Their bodies are being returned to their families for burial at this moment,” he said.
Carmela Dan had Israeli, US and French citizenship. Her granddaughter, Noya Dan, was an Israeli citizen.
Here is a list of the hostages from BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67053011
There are lots of children (young as 3), women, and elderly people. I would be shocked if more than a few of these people are alive by the end of this conflict.
Frequent_Anybody2984
1yr ago
They would prioritize a French speaking Haitian (one of the poorest and lest educated countries) over an educated software engineer or doctor? Am I understanding that correctly?
Frequent_Anybody2984
1yr ago
What happened that day according to you? Was anyone killed?
Frequent_Anybody2984
1yr ago
They released photos of dead babies (2 I believe). They went around a neighborhood door to door and killed anyone in the homes including children. They released photos of the hostages they took which included children.
Frequent_Anybody2984
1yr ago
They killed babies and children and then took some young kids as hostages that same day. They just didn't behead 40 in a nursery or whatever it was, but they essentially did the same thing that exact same day.
Frequent_Anybody2984
1yr ago
Me or the Israelis? Because from what I saw that wasn't reported by the IDF but instead by some random Israeli and the news picked up on it uncritically.
Frequent_Anybody2984
1yr ago
Yes, because journalists and politicians did that immediately when it happened! Where do you think the casualty numbers and this news came from?
Frequent_Anybody2984
1yr ago
It looks like that story wasn't true or exaggerated. But considering the litany of atrocities they committed that same day and were proud of, acting like they wouldn't is ridiculous. There was a hyper focus on whether or not the babies were beheaded or not. It's like fine, they didn't behead the babies, they just did all these other things we know are true that are just as bad. People wanted to focus on that to cast doubt on the other things they did that day, which is absurd because they broadcasted it to the world. Whether or not they did it, that is a debate. What isn't up for debate is if they would kill children because they literally did it that same day and Islamists have done so for decades. And this is true regardless of what Israel did, didn't do, or will do in the future.
Frequent_Anybody2984
1yr ago
A particular building, yes. That particular building, no. This is a group who has put bombs under schools and hospitals in the past. Everything they say should be taken with a massive grain of salt. Israel too, but these people are already skeptical of Israel but believe something said by a literal Islamist organization that is undoubtedly a terrorist group.
Frequent_Anybody2984
1yr ago
Of course. But many of these same people also instantly believed that Israel bombed the hospital and took Hamas's word for it. But what annoys me is that they act like Hamas would never do such a thing, which is of course ridiculous (at least in my opinion) based on their track record on the same day based on videos that they uploaded.
Frequent_Anybody2984
1yr ago
How are people still so naive about Islamic extremists? After ISIS, The Taliban, Al Qaeda, 9/11, all of the terrorist attacks in Europe, etc you still have people in the West who refuse to believe Islamic extremists (which includes Hamas) could commit atrocities and are bad faith actors in this conflict.
Take for example the 40 babies fiasco, where many people (especially on the Left) were talking about war propaganda and how dumb people were for believing that Hamas would do that. Islamic extremists absolutely would do that! These same people who on the same day shot up a whole music festival, murdered innocent children and took toddlers as hostages! But we are supposed to believe killing babies is too far? There is almost no amount of savagery by Islamic extremists that should shock anyone at this point, especially after ISIS, but here we are I guess.
Or take for another example this hospital explosion. It's looking like Israel didn't do it based on new intelligence, but maybe they did. At this point it still is unclear. But one thing I know for sure is that you should not take the word of Hamas seriously on who did it. This is an organization who has put weapons under hospitals and schools and is known to not give a shit if their actions led to Palestinian children's deaths. In fact, they often try to make that happen as a weapon in the information war against. So yes, they absolutely would blow up their own hospital to make Israel look bad, so you shouldn't take the word of Islamic extremists seriously on this issue. Yet you have journalists and politicians in the West taking them at their word on this atrocity. Ironically, these are often some of the same kinds of people who make fun of the Right for falling for fake news and Russian disinformation.
I'm truly at a loss for words here with this conflict. How is this possible? Is there anything that can wake people up to this issue after all these years or is this just something we have to live with?
It has happened before. The activists in the 1960's and 1970's were significantly worse and more violent. That's how we ended up with Nixon and Reagan. But we don't have a Nixon or Reagan in the Republican Party 2023 and it is significantly lower status than it was back then. Trump certainly isn't a return to normalcy.
More options
Context Copy link