You mean men and women segregated bathroom doorways? We'll be just fine, thank you.

MAGA stands opposed to the racism embraced by the left.

Why is there a flag that the nazi flag's covering?

How the hell is it hanging straight down on a corner? The strap connecting the right side of the flag appears to be attached to nothing.

But tell me: Why isn't the trump flag hung on the second overhang then?

A perfect example of how the Nazi symbol is held on the opposite side from a "Trump" flag. This highlights the recent conservative convention in Florida where there were Nazi protesters protesting the conservative convention.

Are you aware that Democrats and the media like to show up to any type of conservative gathering. They put on Nazi shirts, hats and in this case flags while the media sets up their cameras to photograph, or video tape them. They will even interview them sometimes. And when they are done, they will all leave.

I have never been to any Trump rally, nor would I ever, nor do I know where this was taken but I can say with complete certainty that this is one of those times. For all we know this might have been a Trump rally. It could be a completely staged photograph.

No, that is not a conspiracy theory. That is a fact. This is what Democrats do. I have seen it first hand. The know that they are the Nazis and that is why the try so hard to label us as Nazis.

Can you name one, just one, thing conservatives stand for that Nazis also stood for. I can show you tons of stuff the Democrats stand for that the Nazis stood for. It is easy. I even saw a video where some one play the game of guess who said this. They read a quote and asked if it was Hillary or Hitler. Most of the time it was both and one quote was almost word for word the same. Even the phrase, "social justice", can be found in Nazism and it means the exact same thing.

"You have any proof for this claim? Because there are numerous Trump supporters who have openly embraced and espoused white supremacists views. So the "media" wouldn't need to do that anyway."

Do YOU have proof of any of this?

Nationalism is not Nazism. Yes they were "National" socialist but that was Hitler's way of distinguishing himself from his buddy, Josef Stalin. Stalin was an "International socialist".

If nationalism is bad because Hitler was a deranged dictator who murder 12 million of his own people then internationalism must be worse because Stalin murdered 25 million of his own people.

What is a person to do? Are they going to be nationalists or internationalists because both are evil.

Instead of using the standard Democrat talking point, how about you focus on what really made Hitler's regime truly evil. It's not the "Germans Workers Party" (although is closely related to what it is). Socialism murdered 100 million innocent people in a roughly 50 year time span. But you just keep trying to fit that nationalism square pet in the socialism round hole. You just gotta make sure you keep in lockstep with whatever the Democrats tell you to say.

BTW those quotes that Hitler and Hillary made were not vague. They were definitely socialist and not American.

Right > alt right

7 year olds could explain the idiocy because someone with the mind of a 3-year old came up with the concept.

It is factually no different and no less or no more demeaning.

Also a fact... All persons are "of color". We're ALL shades of brown.

Emphasis is at the end of the statement.

Thanks. We heard it the first time you parroted that bromide.

A point without distinction

"White" ..."Whitey"

Yes. Your point is irrelevant. The emphasis (in your opinion) being located wherever you prefer does not in fact make one phrase more or less demeaning. The question was rhetorical to prove a valid point. The left clutches their pearls over some imagined offense then embraces some other idea that by the same criteria is equal to the one that offended them.

So yes you make a point that does not actually answer anything. It’s just some programmed spin that you can use to pretend there is a difference when there is not.

So you'd be fine using the term "Immigrant of Illegality" instead of "Illegal Immigrant"?

Yet, your side uses the incorrect "undocumented immigrant" which of course puts the emphasis on undocumented instead of their personhood. For shame.

I think you broke him XD

They prefer "uninvited houseguest" now.

Ain't your house.

True, because they're not immigrants.

Someone who crosses a threshold without the inhabitants' knowledge or invitation is by definition an intruder at best, invader at worst.

Ain't your house. They're migrants. People move. That's what they do.

Only by the left. Not by sane people.

No, but has you've been corrected countless times, the slight order change does NOT make the phrase more or less offensive. Not sure how you're not getting common sense, but then again you ARE a liberal, so that would explain it.

Nope. Objectively speaking.

"Ain't your house."

Where did I say it was?

And your stance is "don't try to help your neighbors when someone is breaking in", is it? How very liberal of you.

....You did. Earlier. And now. It's a country, it's not your home. They're not breaking into your home, they're trying to move into our country.

"....You did. Earlier. And now"

Citation needed.

They're trying to move in BY breaking in. Isn't that called squatting?

Sure, an argument can be made that's how America was formed, but it wasn't an actual country with recognized borders at the time. ie there was no house.

...citation is what you said, earlier, and now. Do you not know what the word citation actually means or something?

I think you're confusing me with someone else.

You guys went from
n*gger being demeaning but colored people is not, to
colored people being demeaning but negro is not, to
negro is demeaning but black is not, to
black is demeaning but people of color is not,...
and you guys will go from people of color is demeaning but (insert here) is not,..

Your 7yo. will wonder why the word you taught them is offensive in the future.

Switching names will never solve your problem, but it keeps race hustlers fed.

A child saying n*gger, because it thinks it is just a word to describe a black person will always be less racist than a political correct politician hiding his intention behind the newest word.

I saw it personally play out in real life, tell me what you think happened.

Please continue.

Octavia I am, as most of the time, very glad to talk to you.

Especially for this "That is very different from a politician using language which does not contain racial slurs." as that is the keypoint of what I said.

You are mostly right so far, someone got upset that the kid used that word, but it was not the black children it played with or their mother. It was me, (and I explained my god child that it should not use that word later, because slur), and I asked the mother about her opinion about that word.
That was the second time I came across this exact sentiment I stated here (the other was a teacher), and overall the black folk I came in contact with share one thought: "The american fear for this word is f*ing weird"

"You are mostly right so far, someone got upset that the kid used that word, but it was not the black children it played with or their mother."

"and overall the black folk I came in contact with share one thought: "The american fear for this word is f*ing weird" "

Those two are the most ridiculous statments I've seen on this site. And most what is seen here is totally out there to begin with.

Sry that my experiences are so far removed from your own.

Your 'experiences' do not concur with reality.

You should look at your own statements. You're right. WAY outta here.

"Your 'experiences' do not concur with reality."

Wow, how America-centric of you, thinking that American experience defines world experience.

🤦‍♂️

The subject is THE American experience. Which, thus, is the rest of the world's.

"I have no idea what you're going on about, but we're talking about the USA"

No, at the point you entered the conversation, the person you replied to was discussing their personal experiences in what I am assuming (possibly incorrectly) is another country, given the "external observer" nature of their statements.

What country was that?
That person is obviously not from here (like most in Poli), but was talking fanfic about people from here like those actually from here don't know about people from here.

Would you like a link for the meme again, or to that comment so you can address them on the confusion they're causing you?

"What country was that?
That person is obviously not from here (like most in Poli), but was talking fanfic about people from here like those actually from here don't know about people from here."

From the comment you replied to:

"and overall the black folk I came in contact with share one thought: "The american fear for this word is f*ing weird"

This I took to mean the black people he spoke with who live in the same country as he does. You know, black people who are NOT from America.

At this point, I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse, or if you reading comprehension is just that bad.

"The subject is THE American experience."

That's odd, it looked to me like the subject was NON American black people's view of the American view of the word.

"Which, thus, is the rest of the world's."

Gee, way to live up to the "egocentric Americans" view of your country the rest of the world has.

I have no idea what you're going on about, but we're talking about the USA

For clarification:

imgflip.com/i/6yb116

Careful, you'll probably get a timer for saying that while the original comment stays.

You deleted it?
Good, you never know...

Why would it?

That is weird and absolutly not helping any form of discussion.
Deleted comments always muddy the water.
And that is sad as it is hard to find someone with completely different viewpoints that you are able to talk on this side to begin with.

Rule 666, the Mark of the MAGA

Especially lately, they've seem to have gone back to the same old, yet non-MAGA still getting it.

How did you managed to shot point blank and still miss?

And your intentions mean nothing because you just transfered the bad connotations on the new term, my dear person of lower mental capacity.

But you already proofen that you personaly love to walk in cycles.

"my dear person of lower mental capacity.

But you already proofen that you personaly love to walk in cycles."

The irony just overwhelms.

"Ok but the intention to emphasise the people first ..."

?

I would not have chosen "my dear person of lower mental capacity." if it wasn´t for antithesis´ attitude. It was specifically targeted on their "Ok but the intention to emphasise the people first ..." viewpoint.

You're still not getting the point I made, despite me being the 2nd one to make it, are you?

You think color is a bad connotation? Well, that completes the story of the racist who tried. Thanks for playing.

(It's proven, by the way. Proofen is not a word at all. Might help you to argue linguistics to actually know about, you know, the language.)

My friend all you did was trying to fish, so I gave you the fish.

Else you would have just repeated your little mantra there.

You have PROVEN (thanks for the reminder there, I am not allowed to argue in my own language here) to me that you never going to be willing to understand anything.

.....I wasn't fishing for you to say that color is bad, you volunteered that yourself!

My friend I said by forcing a new word on an old term you transfer all meaning to the new term. Here "black" and "people of color". And that you don´t solve the original problem of the bad connotations.

And you played around to try to get me to say something stupid, that lead you to jump to your conclusion: "Color" bad.
You showed your foregone conclusion as soon as you were unwilling to interact with what was written.

Yes, I gave you the fish, and you were so eager to eat it that you, twice, said "color = bad". That was not me.

It's the same dang thing.

Little person, trans woman, african american. All super offensive politically correct terms huh. And colored is ok, as in refering solely to skin color, as long as you get the semantics right. Sounds like you're missing the point.

It may be a clear answer, but a rediculus arguement

Because it sounds pandering. I am colored. We all are, but if we're going by white vs non-white, I am a colored person. "Person of color" makes it sound like I'm getting patted on the head for being a good negro. Personal point of preference, but still.

An understandable sentiment, but it still comes off as patronizing, and it's especially nonsensical when a simple juxtaposition of words makes a phrase from "unacceptable" to "acceptable," particularly when it's a simple description of skin tone.

And if you don't think that there won't come a day when such forcing isn't coming, I'm sorry to say that you may not be paying attention to what's going on around you. Anti-racism is one thing, racism and totalitarianism under the guise of anti-racism is another.