When someone is constantly railing against diversity, minorities, and integration of people using the code language of white nationalists it's quite clear what they are doing. No, they are not going to outright say something that is going to give someone like you to definitive proof - that's the whole point! Instead they talk about the "Invasion" and how whites are being discriminated against, how diversity is just a way of suppressing whites, how minorities are getting all the benefits, how Muslims shouldn't be allowed in, how blacks are murdering at a higher rate and shouldn't complain about the cops, how the transgenders are trying to be perverts, how a illegals are violent, and how these foreigners don't speak our language or share our values and won't be able to work with us or live side by side. It's the collective effort to play to that white nationalist agenda that's alarming. And yes, you can say - well he isn;t saying anything outright racist in my mind so that's ok. That's the point, he is being subversive and using a language to energize white nationalists without having to be condemned. It's the prelude for what's to come. This has been done before in history - it's a well trodden playbook. Trump does it - the whole birth controversy is based on it. Fear the person unlike yourself. Play on that. Birther, Wall, caravan, welfare queens, Muslims, immigrant gangs, H1 Visa workers, Transgenders. It's strange that Trump and his media allies are constantly attacking minorities groups and you don't think there is a violent end game?
I'm confused by your statements, I've never once excused rhetoric, you've already been asked to show even once me supporting anything that the right have said that's incendiary. Again, my side? I've never once voted for a Republican, literally not a single one, and I've been able to vote since the second Bush term. Edit: spelling
We just had Steve King call immigrants dirt...this is an elected official, unfortunately. Funnily enough, the publication that called him out on this, the Weekly Standard, he called them the 'Antifa' news. You're right about it being a boogeyman, just like how BLM was 'Just as bad as the KKK' how many times have I heard that one before? I challenge all of these people that don't see this to find racist forums and reddits on the internet. Lurk there. You'll see exactly what @Sweet Lou 4 2 is talking about. They all know that open racism isn't accepted so they code it with vague words. Things like "Diversity is not our strength..." is something you'll find a lot there. Their only goal in doing it is making it a national discussion and as their goal is to move the Overton window so much so that the 'normies' are debating their ideas. So now we go from "America is proudly diverse" to actually debating if diversity is good or not. When you have Fox News pick up on the talking point? Man, they had to be popping bottles at that. This is a longterm plan for most of these guys. They know they aren't going to get their dream country anytime soon...but if you talk about it and make racism partisan (I will argue they have accomplished this...) then you turn it into policy. Not only do they want immigration to stop, but they want to reverse it entirely. If the Dems were smart, they'd pass an immigration bill that gives amnesty because every time Trump mentions this, you can hear the collective shriek from them. Trump would lose a lot of his base doing this, they'll call him a sell out and completely turn on him, Many of us will not give these people an inch. Tucker could have phrased his arguments differently. He didn't even have to use the word 'diversity', that's a buzzword for those guys. Could have easily said "It's alright if America has a shared culture, despite all of the ethnicities and religions this country hosts, it's great I feel for all of us to have something in common as Americans...." or whatever! Language is a pretty flexible. You can say you are proud of your heritage without saying "White Pride!" And if Tucker came out and said "WHITE PRIDE!" everyone would blink and go "Geeze, that's racist..." Why? Because racists have adopted that phrase and made it theirs. "Diversity is not our strength" is something they've been saying for years now, before Tucker said it. Also, Tucker said this WHILE talking about DACA and immigration... It sucks because as mentioned, I doubt Tucker is a racist, I seriously doubt it seeing the guy talk about politics while not on Fox News reveals him to be a pretty moderate mainstream conservative...but that whistle was blown then and they heard it loud and clear. They think Tucker is their guy, and they will think that until he gets on TV and scolds them for being crappy people, several times.
My position is pretty simple. Assess an argument on its own merits. It doesn’t make any difference to me if it’s a popular argument among racists. It would be totally expected for racists or any other type of bigot you can think of to use reasonable arguments in combination with really bad arguments to build up their worldview. It is a logical error to assume all of their arguments, even their more popular arguments, are racist or are intentional “dog whistles” to racists when used by people from outside their community.
The issue is that he went from talking about DACA and Immigrants to saying "Diversity is not our strength." and it does make a difference because context is everything. That he said that referring to DACA and Immigration and that it's something that White Nationalists say is very troubling for me. He could have said the same thing and used different words, could he not? "I believe that we must share a similar American culture if we want to expect unity." or ANYTHING else outside of that. The truth is, words have history and meaning behind them. The issue is that racists have been using that phrase to move the overton window. If you think that 'Diversity' is a bad thing and its up for debate, then it has worked. Again, I really challenge all the people that don't believe in dog whistles to actually spend some time in places they congregate. The reason they use phrases like this is so that they can back out of it and say "Well, I didn't mean that, I only mean..." we have to understand that these people are not honest and openly...very VERY openly talk about using propaganda and tricks to recruit, convert, and subvert discussion in this country. So, yes, we can talk about the heart of this argument. Diversity is not our strength is two different arguments. The one that racists use amongst themselves and the ones that moderates naively use thinking they are having an honest and clean discussion about immigration or something. 1.) The racist version of this is simple. They mean of course that the more homogenous a nation is, the more trust between citizens, the happier everyone is. Modern day racists like to say "I'm not saying black people are inferior, but everyone should be amongst their own." they will often point to Japan as their example. The issue is, most of history shows that most civil wars spit on this idea. People can split by religion or simply by ideas. Everyone looking the same is no guarantee for unity, at all. You can look at the history of basically ANY continent for this and in ANY century. The idea of "Oh, if we're all just one race then everything will be fine!" 2.) The more moderate of this argument is what Tucker said. Well, the more you have in common with someone the more likely you will like that person. He's right of course. Everyone's partner, GFs, friends, the people they CHOOSE to be around (not family members) are often people they have a lot of things in common with...So what? The premise of this argument presumes that we are supposed to get along with every citizen of our nation? It's a silly argument to me because unless you want to live in some Orwellian kind of government where everyone must think the same then why would you care? What importance is it to have something in common with EVERYONE in the country? He mentioned the military, that the military does not look for diversity...What is he talking about? The Military is as diverse as this country, in race, religion, and politics. The fact that everyone works towards the same goal is not uniformity, because there are different ways to get to said goal, right? In fact, a diverse military is pretty important. How else are you going to talk to Muslim citizens when you're in their country if no one can speak their language? So for me, either way, the argument is pretty....dumb? It's a very bland argument and Tucker's version of it doesn't seem to match the phrase of it at all, because Tucker will stress that he's not talking about race, religion, or anything like that...then WTF is he talking about? It seems he just likes saying "Diversity is not our strength" as much as possible... After Tucker said it, it went from being just something the David Duke's of the world were saying to something conservatives started to say. I can't prove that it was an intentional dog whistle, but it was a dog whistle, and it could have easily been avoided by using a different choice of words. That's all. He keeps blowing it too, even a week ago he was talking about it with Shapiro, he keeps saying it, and keeps stressing "I'm not talking about race!" just that people should have things in common and he never talks about what people should even have in common... All I'm saying is if he wants to make the argument that we need more of a shared culture to be unified, make it, don't use their slogans and buzzwords to do so. He would have gotten an honest debate about it then.
I might be getting some poor second hand information (and if it's the case I'll apologize) but it appears you don't exactly deserve to be taken seriously. An entire fake persona? I don't want an excuse, rather just to hear if that's accurate. If so, you're sad an your opinion is completely irrelevant
We can use that. It still says coerce a government, population, or segment. I don’t think Tucker is a segment, so still not terrorism.
It's a logical error to assume that anyone is assuming here. That's your problem. You look at one or two sentences, but don't look at the whole construct of what is going on. Tucker Carlson isn't a white nationalist. Tucker Carlson is just desperate for ratings and to make coin, so he makes his show to appeal to the alt-right by using the wink-wink language of the white nationalists. People like you would read Hitler's writing in 1919 and say, "why do people think this guy is bad? Why are they making irrational assumptions" you are that person.
Actually Hitler's writings appeal more to modern day socialists. The only difference for them is they'd rather it be a global centralized authority taking things from people than a national one.
No assumption on my part. You just confirmed exactly what I said. Because what Tucker Carlson said is essentially the same as Mein Kampf? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?
I never stated that... whatever you are assuming is wrong. This is your attempt to distract and clearly you are ignoring the actual argument jaygoogle and I are making. Do you deny that Tucker Carlson is using the same arguments white nationalists use in order to gain their viewership?
Ah here we go with the Hitler was a socialist. Now we know you have been reading white nationalist propaganda
If you are referring, specifically, to him questioning that “diversity” is our “strength”, did the connection between those two terms arise in racist circles? Isn’t “diversity is our strength”, or something very similar, just a common refrain among liberals/progressives.? If so, I don’t understand why you’d say that referencing it and questioning its correctness is very particularly a slogan of racists. Correct me if I’m missing what you are talking about. Also, I’m generally uncomfortable with the extent that political discourse requires picking and choosing words so carefully so as not to trigger offense among people who are unwilling to simply contend with and respond to the ideas/argument conveyed by those words. I think it’s an easy way for people to be dismissive of ideas that challenge their beliefs. It violates what I think is an important principle of argumentation — the principle of charity.
