"No one sane", and then you build the Tucker Carlson strawman, and continue to use him, after we both conclude he's not "sane".
> What is the whataboutism?
Bringing up right-wing examples here when they were immaterial to my OP.
These are textbook examples of strawmaning and whatabouting.
>Tucker Carlson, one of the most popular "conservatives", opposes racial equality
Where did he oppose racial equality? I did not see any of that in the links you provided. Can you link actual Tucker Carlson videos of him making statements that oppose racial equality?
>You can call him "not sane" if you want, but he has millions of viewers every day and his views are absolutely mainstream Republicanism in 2021.
ChapTrapHouse, TYT, etc. has millions of subscribers that listen every day and their views are absolutely mainstream Democratism in 2021. There are zero Democratic voters or public figured who disagree with CTH/TYT or condemn him
So which is it, are almost all Democrats actually "insane", or are almost all Democrats against racial equality (anti-White, and becoming more anti-Asian)?
You're strawmaning here again because you haven't provided anything that shows Tucker Carlson, or the Republican Party platform, is against racial equality.
Nonetheless, it's all whataboutism. You're incapable of refuting any of my points, including my OP, so you're commiting several fallacies here.
You're strawmaning here because we agree that Carlson isn't "sane".
Some of your links take things he's said way out of context ("dirty" was referencing the amount of garbage left by illegal immigration at the border, an objective fact), and he's not wrong about leftists wanting to remove borders and import as many people into the West as possible, including an actual Democratic presidential candidate [1].
>(hint: not immigrants from Norway)
They're not flooding in illegally by the tens of thousands every month.
You say: "No one sane opposes racial equality, conservative or liberal." You might be right, but only because there are no sane liberals not named Barak Obama or Joe Lieberman and I think they have better things to do than hang out on HN.
You're still strawmaning and partaking in whataboutism here.
>Its so, so rich to see criticism of "leftism" as "becoming a religion", when the right in this country literally worship a golden idol of The Former Guy at their politics conventions.
Whataboutism. No one is claiming otherwise, certainly not me. Indeed, the left is catching up to the right on interlacing religion and politics.
> Hmm. Is the likes of Tucker Carlson "sane"?
Not sure, probably not. I honestly do not watch Fox News.
> He and other mainstream right wing "thinkers" consistently put out viewpoints that oppose racial equality and oppose anti-racism.
>On the other hand, when did racial equality become an inherently political topic? Especially racial equality inside the workplace.
When acronyms became "white supremacy culture"[1], public magnet schools became "systemic racism"[2], showing up to work on time and objective thinking became "whiteness"[3], etc. "racial equality" became just another Motte and Bailey in the hyper-polarized toxic political world we live in.
No one sane opposes racial equality, conservative or liberal. What many do oppose is the entryist toxic leftism that's making it's headway into every facet of society. That's the "politics at work" that many are opposed to. Leftism became a religion, and "wokeism" is its proselytization.
>What has happened to everyone? It's like we have taken the social media rage machine and applied it to real life interactions.
That's exactly what's happening. As an example, this is the (former) head data analyst at Basecamp:
> If you are white or a man, especially a cis-gendered heterosexual able-bodied white man, do the fucking work. Learn about the characteristics of white supremacy, push through your discomfort, and reflect on how you show up in the spaces you have power. Be ready to apologize when you screw up (we all do!) and then do better. And whatever you do: do not demand that your friends or colleagues or employees or neighbors or acquaintances who belong to historically marginalized groups explain to you all the ways you perpetuate harm and how society got here. Pay an anti-oppression professional for training and coaching; don’t expect us to get you up to speed for free.
And things have come full circle. Apparently the "racist capitalist system" (her words, not mine) ends up being the best way to support those who scored the highest in the oppression Olympics.
"Earning to give" is admitting that capitalism won, and is the most effective way at righting their perceived wrongs.
It's the same illogic right-wingers used to defend billionaires, low taxes, etc. since the late 80s early 90s. "But they donate more than anyone else! Philanthropy! Altruism!"
>Do you think that kind of aggressive tone would be suitable in a work place?
No it wouldn't be, but this isn't work, it's an internet comment section. You're literally providing his point that "there's a time and a place" for shit like this, and work isn't one of them.
>There's absolutely no reason to believe that there were any "ultra-sensitive trigger-warning micro-aggression seeking activists" at Basecamp among the employees.
This is objectively false. There is 100% undeniable proof of these types of employees being there, including one of the heads of data analytics:
> Racist capitalism is poison that has weakened every facet of society and been used to “justify” horrific crimes against humanity while destroying our planet. We need massive power and wealth distribution enshrined in national and international policies.
> If you are white or a man, especially a cis-gendered heterosexual able-bodied white man, do the fucking work. Learn about the characteristics of white supremacy, push through your discomfort, and reflect on how you show up in the spaces you have power. Be ready to apologize when you screw up (we all do!) and then do better. And whatever you do: do not demand that your friends or colleagues or employees or neighbors or acquaintances who belong to historically marginalized groups explain to you all the ways you perpetuate harm and how society got here. Pay an anti-oppression professional for training and coaching; don’t expect us to get you up to speed for free.
I dunno, see people are non-white, and some people are political.
Some people are LGBTQ+, and some people are political
Some people are non-binary/femme, and others are political.
Having engagement people who's idwntity is political is valuable when you consider how much of the population is non-white, non-straight, people of color.
See, we can both play this game. It doesn't nothing for us. It's literally the core reasoning behind Basecamp's "no politics at work" move.
>I've read your links but somehow it feels you haven't read mine as they offer later rebuttals to your sources.
They offer no rebuttals, they only strengthen and agree with my points.
>You may insist that Rubio said something about the report is an official source but his words are contradicted by the report itself.
Except they're not. Rubio is the head chair of the committee that drafted the report. The report agreed with him.
>You are not addressing the central point of the SIC volume 5 report: Trump and his campaign engaged in criminal and unethical activity with Russian ex-spies, agents run by Russia and oligarchs.
> In a thread where the debate is about "people being able to form their opinions on their own" it seems like they really like to depend on spoon-fed talking points.
>I wonder why you're the one sourcing your beliefs from controversial and disavowed summaries and partisan actors.
NPR, official press releases from the chairs of senate intelligence committees, etc. have not been disavowed and the facts agree with me.
Again, if you stop believing fake news and actually read what has been linked above, you will find that:
“Over the last three years, the Senate Intelligence Committee conducted a bipartisan and thorough investigation into Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election and undermine our democracy. We interviewed over 200 witnesses and reviewed over one million pages of documents. No probe into this matter has been more exhaustive."
“We can say, without any hesitation, that the Committee found absolutely no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election."
"No one sane", and then you build the Tucker Carlson strawman, and continue to use him, after we both conclude he's not "sane".
> What is the whataboutism?
Bringing up right-wing examples here when they were immaterial to my OP.
These are textbook examples of strawmaning and whatabouting.
>Tucker Carlson, one of the most popular "conservatives", opposes racial equality
Where did he oppose racial equality? I did not see any of that in the links you provided. Can you link actual Tucker Carlson videos of him making statements that oppose racial equality?
>You can call him "not sane" if you want, but he has millions of viewers every day and his views are absolutely mainstream Republicanism in 2021.
ChapTrapHouse, TYT, etc. has millions of subscribers that listen every day and their views are absolutely mainstream Democratism in 2021. There are zero Democratic voters or public figured who disagree with CTH/TYT or condemn him
So which is it, are almost all Democrats actually "insane", or are almost all Democrats against racial equality (anti-White, and becoming more anti-Asian)?
You're strawmaning here again because you haven't provided anything that shows Tucker Carlson, or the Republican Party platform, is against racial equality.
Nonetheless, it's all whataboutism. You're incapable of refuting any of my points, including my OP, so you're commiting several fallacies here.