GOP congressman calls on US House to ban Democrats from chamber due to racism

[unfilteredJW]

Lol this is so silly but it would give left taste of its own medicine. They should be fine with it too, if they knew anything else than double standards and hypocrisy.

Projection, thy name is Cizr.

[Adam Jensen]

That doesn't matter. The left is trying eradicate all things that are attached to that bygone era. The Democrat Party name is one of those things.

False.

The left is trying to eradicate all things that glorify that bygone era. Not eradicate completely.

I'd love to, for once, listen to a right winger who actually understands what the left wants, and not what he thinks the left wants.

[unfilteredJW]

The bygone era of the Civil Rights movement when the statues were put up by racists upset that their daughters might marry a black man?

Sure thing boo boo.

[cubby]

If the left wants to make everyone else change any name connected to the Confederacy or Slavery, then surely the Democrat party name should be changed since it was the party to support slavery and segregation.

Don't argue that things have changed. Things have changed for all the others as well.

Not all things have changed. That's the point - the things that don't want to change need to be changed regardless. Hence no Confederate Flag, nor celebrating Confederate soldiers with statues.

The position that the Congressman is taking has nothing to do with what the "left" is doing - he's just trying to muddy the waters. I'm sorry you can't see the difference, but the rest of us can.

- - - Updated - - -

Reading comprehension helps. I said leftists not Democrat (not Democratic) party. Although I can see where they can confused.

Your example: Princeton University. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/27/n...ow-wilson.html

Perfect example to prove my point. That's the past, and if that past still stands for slavery and racism, then it should be changed. The Democratic Party (the "left") does not, and so it shouldn't.

Do you get the difference between something that has changed and something that has not? The "left" has changed, the Confederacy has not. Simple.

- - - Updated - - -

That doesn't matter. The left is trying eradicate all things that are attached to that bygone era. The Democrat Party name is one of those things.

You couldn't be more wrong. The "left" is trying to remove historical celebrations of racism - like Confederate statues. The Democratic Party has changed from what it was before.

The difference seems to be well beyond your grasp - shocking no one on this forum.

[Felya]

Lol this is so silly but it would give left taste of its own medicine. They should be fine with it too, if they knew anything else than double standards and hypocrisy.

Yes, because the left is protecting statues of confederates that attacked the US... wtf?

[D Luniz]

False.

The left is trying to eradicate all things that glorify that bygone era. Not eradicate completely.

I'd love to, for once, listen to a right winger who actually understands what the left wants, and not what he thinks the left wants.

but without those strawmen, how will they win
and remember, they were promised winning, so much winning, till they were sick of it

[Elegiac]

That doesn't matter. The left is trying eradicate all things that are attached to that bygone era. The Democrat Party name is one of those things.

Hello strawman.

[cubby]

Hello strawman.

Thwarty has struggled with conspiracy theories (the fucking irony, speaking of the recent past) and a number of other issues that elude common sense and basic logic. The strawman he puts forth above is just more of the usual drivel. He, as do others, struggles with the idea that events of the past are left in the past, so long as they are not praised or celebrated in the present.

Which is why a political party, with a long-gone past of racism, can stand proud by wanting to tear down those monuments to racism in the present. This is something that he and people like him with rarely ever understand.

[GreenJesus]

Not all things have changed. That's the point - the things that don't want to change need to be changed regardless. Hence no Confederate Flag, nor celebrating Confederate soldiers with statues.

The position that the Congressman is taking has nothing to do with what the "left" is doing - he's just trying to muddy the waters. I'm sorry you can't see the difference, but the rest of us can.

- - - Updated - - -



Perfect example to prove my point. That's the past, and if that past still stands for slavery and racism, then it should be changed. The Democratic Party (the "left") does not, and so it shouldn't.

Do you get the difference between something that has changed and something that has not? The "left" has changed, the Confederacy has not. Simple.

- - - Updated - - -



You couldn't be more wrong. The "left" is trying to remove historical celebrations of racism - like Confederate statues. The Democratic Party has changed from what it was before.

The difference seems to be well beyond your grasp - shocking no one on this forum.

What about the people that are being cancelled over something they said 10-12 years ago on twitter? I'm sure they have changed since then right? Doesn't seem to matter to the cancel mob.

[Endus]

What about the people that are being cancelled over something they said 10-12 years ago on twitter? I'm sure they have changed since then right? Doesn't seem to matter to the cancel mob.

Have they disavowed their prior statements, apologized for them, and worked against what they used to stand for?

No?

Then you're comparing apples to battleships and wondering why we don't see the connection.

[Machismo]

What about the people that are being cancelled over something they said 10-12 years ago on twitter? I'm sure they have changed since then right? Doesn't seem to matter to the cancel mob.

You mean... free speech?

[Howel]

What about the people that are being cancelled over something they said 10-12 years ago on twitter? I'm sure they have changed since then right? Doesn't seem to matter to the cancel mob.

Problem there is, that's individuals (which still doesn't make some of those cancellations dumb). But here we are talking about a party, an organization, that has no more members from that age, nor keep around and glorify aspects of said past as some honorable memorabilia.

Could still demand to get them to change their name.

[Antiganon]

What about the people that are being cancelled over something they said 10-12 years ago on twitter? I'm sure they have changed since then right? Doesn't seem to matter to the cancel mob.

Surely you have some relevant examples where the cancelled person:
1) Said something objectionable on a public forum long ago; and
2) It reflected their opinions at the time, but they have since changed their opinion, publicly apologized, and denounced their previous statements, or
3) Their statement was considered socially acceptable (or at worst, marginal) at the time and it is only in today's context that the statement is offensive, and they recognized that their past conduct is inappropriate by today's standards

I'll wait.

[Felya]

What about the people that are being cancelled over something they said 10-12 years ago on twitter?

What does being cancelled mean?

[Endus]

What does being cancelled mean?

From the examples they dredge up, it seems to mean "got legitimately called out publicly for being an abusive ding-dong".

[Felya]

Surely you have some relevant examples where the cancelled person:
1) Said something objectionable on a public forum long ago; and
2) It reflected their opinions at the time, but they have since changed their opinion, publicly apologized, and denounced their previous statements, or
3) Their statement was considered socially acceptable (or at worst, marginal) at the time and it is only in today's context that the statement is offensive, and they recognized that their past conduct is inappropriate by today's standards

I'll wait.

I got one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gunn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troma_Entertainment

One more? Sure...

The Last of Us 2 voice actor Laura Bailey sent horrifying death threats over gamers disliking her character
https://metro.co.uk/2020/07/04/last-...cter-12943471/

[NoiseTank13]

If you think Louie Gohmert Pyle of all people has a good idea, it's time to stop posting.

[Felya]

From the examples they dredge up, it seems to mean "got legitimately called out publicly for being an abusive ding-dong".

It’s why I want him to define it... Because I’m pretty sure the alt right sending death threats to a voice actress, because a video game character is gay or trans, counts as cancelled... even if she didn’t get fired due to the cancel campaign. I’m pretty sure there isn’t a single person who has faced a cancellation campaign, as much as Anita Sarcisian... or are we acting like gamer gate, wasn’t cancel culture?

Do we count the Trump staffer from 2016 accusing him of trying to force him self on her, dropping her case because of the death threats her mother and family received? Was that lawsuit cancelled?

Let’s also not forget the likely most famous victim of cancel culture... Colin Kapernic...

Edit: Funny enouph, this is the same look I have on my face, when people bitch about lefts cancel culture:

[Ivanstone]

Edit: Funny enouph, this is the same look I have on my face, when people bitch about lefts cancel culture:

That's not a great example of cancel culture. Threatening the life of the POTUS is a big no-no for American residents and she was rightly called out for it.

Of course, the right's big salty tears over Kathy Griffin was nowhere in sight when Ted Nugent ran his fucking mouth multiple times. There was plenty of bitching about his nice warm chat with the Secret Service.

[muto]

Yeah Democrats own up. Change your party name since it’s historically been the party of racism. Also get that Democrat Andrew Jackson off the 20$ bill, that was anti-abolitionist and is known for the Trail of Tears.