That is, racism may be evil, but far more evil is exploiting or promoting racism for personal gain. That includes political expediency.
Let's face it, death and taxes may or may not be a sure thing, but we all knew with 100% certainly that anything other than the worship of Judge Jackson would be met with implicit, if not explicit, accusations of racism, sexism, or both. That's called playing the race and sex card. For example:
I'm not sure if the GOP had gathered to worship Judge Jackson as the one, true god it would have kept the leftwing line of "Racist=Non-Leftist" from being floated. I just knew the first moment anyone broke with demands for obedience to the Left and dared question Judge Jackson, the charge of racism and/or sexism would fly faster than a rocket.
Racism has been the favored cudgel of the Left for years because, like many times and places in human history, America has had prejudice, including racism, in its borders. It's easy to use a valid sin to destroy someone. Problem is, if that someone is a reformed sinner who has tried to put the sin behind them and do what's right, then what do you do? That is assuming your goal isn't the sinner's redemption, but her destruction.
That's when you have to don your jolly Satan, and become the perpetual Accusing One. No matter how much penance, no matter how much confession, no matter how much remorse, you must always - and I mean 24/7 - look for ways to keep those sins alive and, if not alive, then at least in the minds of everyone, including the sinner.
That's what makes someone like Judge Jackson so valuable. Whatever her barely discussed credentials, the important thing is that it gives yet another platform for keeping America as Sexist Nazi State in the headlines, in the editorial cartoons, in the punditry, and in the State confessional.
That cartoon is literally retarded. The cartoonist is either a moron or intentionally creating emotional propaganda.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair this statement would apply to about 90% of political cartoons.
DeleteIt's the Race Card. There was nothing in anything any GOP member said or did that even came within the galaxy of racism. It's the old liberal 'Racism defined as not liberal.' Hence why when liberal invoke racist attacks against a black conservative, it isn't racism in their eyes since, again, racist equals non-liberal, and non-liberal only.
DeleteOf course. The women was born in 1970 into a family that was middle class in the strict sense (both parents schoolteachers) and, in fact, fancy middle class for much of her upbringing (father admitted to the bar ca. 1978). She attended an Ivy League school for seven years (roughly 2/3 of black students in those circumstances receive mulligans in the admissions process btw) and landed a federal clerkship on completing her law degree. There's been a black on the court without interruption since 1967, and if confirmed, she'll be one of two out of nine in a country where 4% of the working lawyers are black. Rosa Parks was an ordinary wage earner in Montgomery, Alabama (though one who was an officer in the local NAACP chapter; her confrontation with the bus driver was planned civil disobedience).
DeleteLiberal discourse in our time is almost completely valueless. They've got some truth-tellers on Substack and some policy wonks like Harold Pollack. Otherwise they're clowns and liars.
Art, that reminds me of a story from a some time ago, a couple years perhaps. It was one of the morning news shows. In talking about the GOP and some bill or another, it said the GOP only had one black senator. It never mentioned that at the time there were only three black senators. By default, if there are only three, either they're all in one party, or there will be at least one party with one black senator. But it all sounded so racist and discriminatory on the GOP's part.
DeleteNate speaks the truth. The sad part is this isn't even the worst cartoon I've seen. There was a Doonesbury strip about a year ago that implied that Republicans not only hate masks (an odd claim in itself as I know plenty of Republicans who wore masks during covid), but that anti-mask Republicans also hate people who pay taxes and stop at red lights. I don't know what universe Gary Trudeau (the creater of Doonesbury) thinks he lives in, but I know plenty of Republicans (including anti-maskers) that pay taxes and stop at red lights. I've worn a mask in plenty of Republican areas and nobody cares.
DeleteI think that goes to something I said years and years ago. Because liberals have all of the agencies that would typically call out such ludicrous perspectives, they are never called out. So they can continue to become more and more ridiculous, while patting each other on the back since there is nobody to call them out - except those they have ever growing contempt and loathing for.
DeleteWell you know who loved the cartoon: https://twitter.com/chezami/status/1506998577712676864
ReplyDeleteAnd like you said, he really loves playing the Satan role: https://twitter.com/chezami/status/1507139431194456070
This is what I was trying to convey in this TAC thread. The left loves to go with debating the "intent" of someone because no matter what, it is a debate they cannot lose. Because there's nothing objective or observable in this. We can make educated guesses all day long but we can never really know for sure what's in someone's heart & mind.
Like, if a guy straight up cured cancer - who cares about his motivations or intents, we got a cure for cancer! On the other hand, it's easier to tear him down if you can accuse him of being greedy or hateful etc etc.
Why doesn't that surprise me.
DeleteBut you're absolutely right. Attacking the motive is 70% of progressive discourse. It's not confined to the Left, and is an old politician's trick. My opponent doesn't want to reform our legal system, he wants hardened criminals to rape your daughters. The problem is, as always, the Left can engage in this with impunity because it has the press, pop culture and education, all of which should police such behavior but won't.
Ace from Ace of Spades has noted that when a Republican is in a scandal the reporting is on the scandal, but when a democrat is in a scandal the reporting (if there is a story at all) is on the Republican motivations for "exploiting" the scandal. Ex. "Republican cheats on his wife" vs. "Republicans shamelessly pounce on senator's marital troubles." (It's always "pounce" for some reason.)
DeleteAbsolutely true. That's practically AP guidelines. If it's a Democrat accused, always frame it as Republicans investigating. If it's a Republican, report it as if it's truth beyond sought by the Democrats. If it's a Republican scandal, it's about the scandal. If it's a Democrat in almost all cases, it will be about the Republicans making something of it. And on and on.
DeleteThis cartoon is really funny considering most Republicans love Clarence Thomas
ReplyDeleteThomas doesn't count. He's an unperson in the view of the Left. Like an anti-abortion woman who thinks moms should try to stay home and take care of the kids, or the person who puts a homosexual lifestyle behind them, they simply don't exist and are never referenced if at all possible.
Delete