It's racist, because she's black, I guess? Allowing a black woman to defend a white man against a charge of racism is using her as "prop," which proves that he's racist; whereas, of course, using a white man to defend a white man against a charge of racism is to be dismissed as mere white privilege (or "supremacy" or something). And of course, if you don't defend yourself at all, well, surely you'd rebut it if you could, so the charge must be true.
These rhetorical games are getting old fast.
4 comments:
The funny thing about fighting religious fanatics is how ridiculous it all becomes.
Same thing vs Islam as vs State Christianity.
They don't even realize they are fanatics in a religious dogma. They think their traditions are correct and thus are righteous.
The SJW's do seem determined to replace the Miranda rights with the "rights" read out to Nodwick by Baphuma'al's minions in "A World without Piffany, Part 1":
"You have the right to confess your transgressions. Any deviation from the truth will be met with swift retribution and possible death. Telling the truth is no guarantee of safety. You have the right to scream and beg for mercy, but that is often counterproductive. You have the right to die, but not until an agent of the state has utilized a weapon of some kind on your person."
I thought that Congressman Meadows exhibited a great deal of self control in remaining formal and following procedural rules during this bit.
Tlaib should be censured, as that was plainly a personal attack against a member of the body.
Tlaib should be censured, as that was plainly a personal attack against a member of the body.
A blatantly racist one, too, but Cummings demonstrated his fear of her throughout that exchange.
Eric Hines
Post a Comment