The entire “nailed it” routine collapses under one missing detail -the assumption that every accusation is true.
No. It’s a lead-in to examination. There’s no assumption of 100% accuracy based on the question itself. Take the leaked Signal chats from those Republican legislators. It’s entirely fair to call those comments out as racist based on the contents of those comments. Would you disagree?
Take it further. Is wrongfully calling someone racist, racist?
No. Even considering your presupposition slipped in there about ‘wrongfully’, such a conclusion would demonstrate either a profound misunderstanding of the word, or an attempt to disingenuously conflate the actual issue.
Test your reasoning there against (1) the comments shown below, and (2) against anyone calling out those comments as racist.
Interesting. Very, very, very interesting. The entire “nailed it” routine collapses under one missing detail -the assumption that every accusation is true. That every charge of racism, phobia, or denialism or nazi ass fascism is righteous and precise.
Why on earth would every instance have to be true? That's a ridiculously high standard.
"He disturbs the laws of his country, he forces himself upon women, and he puts men to death without trial.” ~Otanes on the monarch, Herodotus Histories 3.80.
Interesting. Very, very, very interesting. The entire “nailed it” routine collapses under one missing detail -the assumption that every accusation is true. That every charge of racism, phobia, or denialism or nazi ass fascism is righteous and precise.
Why on earth would every instance have to be true? That's a ridiculously high standard.
It is a ridiculously low standard for accusations to never be true. Could there be something in the middle?
Why on earth would every instance have to be true? That's a ridiculously high standard.
If one needs to explain to someone how the current admin is authoritarian, then that someone is too stupid/ignorant/belligerent to ever see it. Obtuse is also a good word for it.
Anyone paying a scintilla of attention sees the tiny dick compensation (dictator) coming from the White House, assuming they aren't suffering a serious head injury.
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.
Why on earth would every instance have to be true? That's a ridiculously high standard.
If one needs to explain to someone how the current admin is authoritarian, then that someone is too stupid/ignorant/belligerent to ever see it. Obtuse is also a good word for it.
Anyone paying a scintilla of attention sees the tiny dick compensation (dictator) coming from the White House, assuming they aren't suffering a serious head injury.
That explanation may be too heavy of a lift for you Schmo. You were good to assign that to someone else.
Or we could go with, That's the whiskey talking after every post.
Actually, that’s surprisingly appropriate, given how many times I’ve seen folks three sheets to the wind ramble on for many minutes without actually saying a damn thing.
: D
Usually, though, those drunk folks aren’t purposely trying to act that way, unlike what we see from some folks in here.
