The entire conservative, pro cop playbook is “say silly things, pretend you don’t know they’re silly”.
And if anyone calls you out, act offended. Everyone knows if you are offended you are right. Growing up in a religious household it’s incredible how many times I saw someone use, “You’re rude therefore you are wrong” as a core tenant of “debate”.
The ‘victim card’ is the conservative ‘race card’.
When conservatives fearmonger about immigrants and brown people, one of the current favorite talking points is to say they’re “military-aged.” It’s vague and meaningless, but it implies something sinister, and plays into just about any conspiracy theory an audience member might be inclined to believe.
On top of that, they’re afraid from merely seeing these people. They’re just scared to death of brown and black kids and young adults.
In this context that probably means something around “traumatized and depressed by the military regime in the place where they come from”
But they don’t always come from places with such regimes and/or wars, while local citizens are also traumatized and depressed just for a different reason
At least in the contexts I’m talking about, and I’ve never seen it used in another, it’s really not that. It’s coming from talking heads fearmongering about nonwhites, portraying nonwhite immigrants as criminals, ginning up a “border crisis” narrative, and even calling it an “invasion.”
Yeah, pretty much. It ties into the “white genocide” and “great replacement” conspiracy theories, where the mere existence of nonwhites is taken as violence. It also often blames Jews for orchestrating it. It doesn’t make any sense, but it appeals to paranoia and supremacy, and provides a scapegoat for literally any actual systemic problem.
Possibly so.
When they say the “first” I cannot tell if they mean the first one I mentioned or the first one they mentioned.
Relative references in language is confusing!
The entire conservative, pro cop playbook is “say silly things, pretend you don’t know they’re silly”.
And if anyone calls you out, act offended. Everyone knows if you are offended you are right. Growing up in a religious household it’s incredible how many times I saw someone use, “You’re rude therefore you are wrong” as a core tenant of “debate”.
The ‘victim card’ is the conservative ‘race card’.
Really reminds me of the “military-aged” thing. It’s just so pathetic.
Military-aged thing?
When conservatives fearmonger about immigrants and brown people, one of the current favorite talking points is to say they’re “military-aged.” It’s vague and meaningless, but it implies something sinister, and plays into just about any conspiracy theory an audience member might be inclined to believe.
On top of that, they’re afraid from merely seeing these people. They’re just scared to death of brown and black kids and young adults.
In this context that probably means something around “traumatized and depressed by the military regime in the place where they come from”
But they don’t always come from places with such regimes and/or wars, while local citizens are also traumatized and depressed just for a different reason
At least in the contexts I’m talking about, and I’ve never seen it used in another, it’s really not that. It’s coming from talking heads fearmongering about nonwhites, portraying nonwhite immigrants as criminals, ginning up a “border crisis” narrative, and even calling it an “invasion.”
Ah, well, I’m wrong then. Maybe they mean something like “it’s those guys at war with us [white supremacists]” then?
Well I just learned the term today, but it seems to have the implication "these are men who could be military. They could be hidden insurgents
How convenient when nothing should be proven right
Yeah, pretty much. It ties into the “white genocide” and “great replacement” conspiracy theories, where the mere existence of nonwhites is taken as violence. It also often blames Jews for orchestrating it. It doesn’t make any sense, but it appeals to paranoia and supremacy, and provides a scapegoat for literally any actual systemic problem.
“Anything but complete surrender is invalid” - Sadly I’m familiar
Except only one of those is real, while the other is made up by those trying to use the first…
Boop beep I got delete.
They may have meant that “race card” is real and “victim cars” is not. But I still don’t think that is a valid point
Possibly so.
When they say the “first” I cannot tell if they mean the first one I mentioned or the first one they mentioned.
Relative references in language is confusing!
Technically, for referencing the previous parts there are “former” and “latter”, but you never know if it was not used intentionally or not.