I am nobody wrote:There's too many quotes in this post already, so I'll just respond to the last part of your most recent post by saying that history strongly disagrees with the idea that "normal" people can't commit atrocities. Read about the Rwandan genocide, to pick a relatively recent and particularly extreme example. 500,000 to 1 million people hacked to death by their neighbors in just over three months. Did everyone just temporarily go insane?
I will have to read about that since I don't recall hearing about it, but it certainly sounds insane by how you describe it, like some kind of "purge" level ****.
I am nobody wrote:I didn't compare them. I said that they were now using language you'd previously only have heard from fringe figures, which is true. I don't think Carlson is going out and attending Klan meetings on Tuesday nights, but saying that immigration makes us "dirtier", to pick another example, is certainly language from their playbook.
But I'm more specifically referring to replacement ideology, which Carlson and Ingrahm have both reference numerous times. See this for links to loads of examples.
What is your intention by pointing out that you think they're using similar language then if not to compare them? Also, I'm sure you don't just hear snippets of what Tucker says on some lefty site and walk away believing their crap, right? All it takes is watching Tucker to know it's bull****. Here
Last week, we interviewed a man named Genaro Lopez. Lopez is an elected official in Tijuana, Mexico. He’s exactly the kind of person you’d think a lot of American journalists would want to talk to. For months, the media have demanded that the migrant caravan from Honduras must be admitted into the United States. Once it gets here, they’ve told us, our country will be greatly improved by its presence. That’s how immigration works.
OK. It turns out we can test that hypothesis. That very same caravan, the one they’ve been telling you about, is now encamped in Tijuana. It’s been there for weeks. Simple question: Has the caravan made Tijuana better? Genaro Lopez would know the answer. His job is to represent the citizens of that city. We’ve invited Lopez on twice to ask about the caravan. He’s some of what he told us.
I asked him, "Behind you it seems that somebody's cleaning up garbage. Is there a lot of trash there?"
Lopez responded: "There's a lot of trash because, what I was trying to tell you, the 360 [people we had here] grew to 6,200. And that's why it got out of hand. So, we got another facility. It's a big concert hall where you can have like 10,000 people under a roof."
That was on December 3. Ten days later, we invited Genaro Lopez back on to the show to see how Tijuana was doing.
Nobody else in the media seemed interested in what had happened to the caravan. As long as the migrants remained in Mexico, they couldn’t really be used to attack Donald Trump. So the press moved on to the next dumb, shiny thing. But we were interested. Here’s what Lopez told us:
"Things aren't getting better. They're probably getting worse," he said. "Last weekend, we issued an ultimatum to all the Hondurans and Guatemalans that are camping out here on the street. They're blocking the street. And they're bringing all their necessities, trashing the street. ... Problems are still going on. There's been like 280 arrests. Before, it was solely for drug possession and being drunk in the streets. Now, it's for breaking and entering into homes."
Trashing the street. Doing drugs in public. Blocking traffic. Breaking into homes. That’s not at all what CNN promised us.
Was Genaro Lopez one of those white nationalists the New York Times is always warning us about? Did he make the whole thing up, pictures and all, for his own sick, bigoted reasons?
Possibly. Or maybe, and this was our conclusion, there could be a lesson here for the United States. Here’s what we said that night on the show:
"Our country's economy is becoming more automated and tech-centered by the day. It's obvious that we need more scientists and skilled engineers. But that's not what we're getting. Instead, we're getting waves of people with high school educations or less. Nice people, no one doubts that but as an economic matter, this is insane. It's indefensible, so nobody even tries to defend it. Instead, our leaders demand that you shut up and accept this. We have a moral obligation to admit the world's poor, they tell us, even if it makes our own country poorer and dirtier and more divided."
In a fast-evolving economy, it could be preferable to import more engineers, and fewer people with low skills, no matter how nice or well-meaning those people might be. And we always assume they are.
That’s what we said. That was our claim. And it’s hard to argue with that. In fact, nobody on the left did argue with it. They ignored it. Instead, they zeroed in on the last line: “The left says we have a moral obligation to admit the world's poor, even if it makes our own country more like Tijuana is now, which is to say poorer and dirtier and more divided.”
That’s what we said. It’s true. Ask Genaro Lopez. Thanks to the efforts of the American left, he and his city are living with the consequences.
There's nothing wrong with what Carlson or Lopez said. I can't account for every single comment ever made by all of those people, but I don't see anything particularly "problematic."
I am nobody wrote:So, no, they haven't explicitly said to go shoot anyone. But they have said it's an invasion, stressed that it's a real invasion, used that to justify obviously inhumane treatment, and then added on that they're criminals hear to ruin their lives.
If there actually was an invasion of criminals bent on replacing you who it was morally okay to mistreat headed your way, what would a rational response be?
Is it not an invasion?
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain
the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful
infringement by intrusion
entrance as if to take possession or overrun
Would it be okay if they just said there's an "unwelcome intrusion"? Or would it be deemed hateful that illegal immigrants are not welcome? I think anything they say will be attacked.
What "obviously inhumane treatment" is being justified? If you mean detaining illegal immigrants, do you have a better solution? I'd like to know what humane, effective action can be taken if you're against that.
I don't think anyone said all illegal immigrants are criminals (outside of illegal entry, of course) and that they're here to intentionally ruin anyone's lives, even if they may do so somewhat indirectly. If so then they're obviously wrong.
If there actually was an invasion of criminals bent replacing Americans, I think a rational response would be to purchase firearms and prepare to defend your home from these criminals in case they do something to you. Is that a wrong response? I think it's a good one.
I am nobody wrote:You cut out, like, all of the context for this statement. The OP is a redirection of arguments used in response to previous mass killings, as I've said.
The full version, again, is that if one blames Muslims (or socialism or radical environmentalism or whatever) at large for terrorism, as major figures have done, then one must also blame the anti-immigrant right at large for the actions in the OP.
I didn't intend to cut out context, sorry if it seems that way.
Terrorism is to be blamed on the individuals, groups, and organized ideologies responsible, as well as anyone inciting violence. If a Muslim commits an act of terrorism on behalf of ISIS it's clear who and what to blame. If a right-winger commits an act of terrorism whose fault is it? No credible right-wingers condone violence, so it's solely upon the individual who committed the crime to bear responsibility, or whatever fringe elements he was involved with. ISIS isn't fringe, they're just behaving like Muhammad. Who are right-wing terrorists behaving like? Trump? I don't see your argument.