Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Bauglir]

I'm in awe. Is he trolling? Can anyone really be that stupid?

[GlyphGryph]

Is there anything stupid about it, exactly? It seems to suit his purposes perfectly, no? He'll have tons of defenders arguing it's a perfectly valid term because there's just enough plausible deniability when he he points out its a term liberal history professors might well use, and yet he also gets to make some blatanty racist statements that the animals in the street who want "street justice" need to just sit back and let the white man's system do its thing because they aint gettin' nothing.

Here's some of the literature he's released, to give you some background on the guy:

[SalmonGod]

Ferguson PD continue to raise the bar.

[Bauglir]

I... can't imagine a defense. He's explicitly saying that the law is good because it was created by "Anglo-American"s - I mean, if he hadn't said this in response to a question about the relevancy of race, sure, I could imagine an argument being made. It's not just that he used the term "Anglo-American jurisprudence tradition".

[SalmonGod]

I think if taken to task on it, he'd throw up some bullshit about how he was academically referring to the historical origins of our legal process, with a wink and a nod to any white supremacists in the crowd.

[Bauglir]

Yeah, but I don't see how he can since he specifically said race was playing a role.

[GlyphGryph]

He'll say that's taking the statement out of context and is nothing but a smear.

[SalmonGod]

It's classic conservative rhetoric strategy, though... It doesn't matter how wrong it is, because the people already on his side won't care and just claim that reading racism into a historically accurate statement is trying too hard.  To criticize that defense means either correcting the history or de-constructing the rhetoric... but diving into details like that just doesn't sail as well in public debate.  The conservative doesn't lose anybody who already agrees with him, and his opponents lose anyone who doesn't already agree with them because it's impossible to make their opposition sound snappy and digestible.  So everything stays static, which benefits the conservative when they already have the most power on their side.

Edit:

Tear gas canisters at least three decades old found used against Ferguson protests.

[Zombi]

May I get a source on that Kinder tatement please? I need to see this for myself.

[GavJ]

It's classic conservative rhetoric strategy, though... It doesn't matter how wrong it is, because the people already on his side won't care and just claim that reading racism into a historically accurate statement is trying too hard.  To criticize that defense means either correcting the history or de-constructing the rhetoric... but diving into details like that just doesn't sail as well in public debate.  The conservative doesn't lose anybody who already agrees with him, and his opponents lose anyone who doesn't already agree with them because it's impossible to make their opposition sound snappy and digestible.  So everything stays static, which benefits the conservative when they already have the most power on their side.

Edit:

Tear gas canisters at least three decades old found used against Ferguson protests.

I don't think this logic really stands up as a "strategy" when you consider that you would accomplish the exact same thing if you simply omitted those phrases entirely.

[SalmonGod]

But it wouldn't accomplish the smug satisfaction from being able to openly display one's bigotry and get away with it, and to reinforce the echo chamber that is the lifeblood of reactionary conservative thought.

[LordSlowpoke]

i'm displeased that you imply that it's only extreme conservatives that live in an echo chamber

pretty much all extremists live like that

[SalmonGod]

Not something I meant to imply... just keeping things within context.

I would contend your statement a little bit, though... depends on what you consider extremist.  There are plenty of types that are considered extremists by the majority, but for whom an echo chamber culture isn't a major factor.  Example: environmentalists.

[Helgoland]

Hehe, environmentalists don't have echo statements? I challenge you to read Greenpeace's opinion on fusion power and say that again

At least that applies to extremist environmentalists. Not so much for non-extremist environmentalists, but they're not considered extremists, are they? At least by non-extremist people.

[SalmonGod]

That's why I said it depends on what you consider extremists.  In mainstream U.S. politics, anything more than a token shrug of environmentalist sentiment is seen as radical political stance, and has almost zero representation.  Pretty much anyone who engages in any kind of political activism for the environment is considered extremist by anyone who isn't an environmentalist, but I know you understand that not everyone who does is lulled into it by echo chamber bullshit.  There are plenty of legitimate reasons for a properly informed person to feel extreme urgency on environmental issues.