50's newspaper

The 2nd Gentleman of These United States

Doug_Emhoff

Kamala Effhoff.

UPVOTED for "Bangers & Mash", just FYI:

* Kamala's board of directors at Partnership for Central America NPO is A.J. BANGA

(*AutoPen appointed to World Bank, Board member of WEF, Private/Public Partnership Pro)

Time to check that paper trail?

Too big to fail on a Global Scale

lol
UPVOTED

This meme collapses the second you apply its logic consistently.

It claims that criticizing racism means “you believe white men are inherently evil,” and then treats marrying a white man as proof of hypocrisy.

That is absurd.

By that logic:

If you criticize government corruption, you must hate every government employee.

If you criticize police misconduct, you must hate every cop.

If you criticize corporate abuse, you must hate every business owner.

If you criticize Christianity, you must hate every Christian.

Nobody actually reasons that way.

The trick is that the meme quietly swaps **“racism and discriminatory systems can exist”** for **“white men are evil.”**

Those are not the same statement.

And once you notice that substitution, the whole meme stops being clever. It becomes something uglier: convincing people that their political opponents secretly despise them because of their race.

Before sharing something like this, ask yourself one uncomfortable question:

**Did these people actually say “white men are inherently evil,” or did someone tell me they believe that because it makes me angrier at them?**

If the accusation only survives when you put words in someone else’s mouth, you haven’t exposed their prejudice.

You’ve exposed your own willingness to believe a story because it confirms what you already wanted to believe.

You're the fool.

To be fair are betas really men?

That's a good question

I would place them slightly under a transman, because the trans picked that side.

Well of course - trans men can bring ovaries to the table.

As a white man who isn't evil and racist, I don't think all white men are evil and racist.

That's sounds exactly what an evil white racist would say...

the dem party does...

If liberals "hate" white men, why would they trust and follow white men? Where have they ever said they hate white men?

Read my meme... Where did I ever mention hate? Seems like you must have heard or witnessed stuff that makes you think liberals hate white men, because you've introduced inflammatory language that I did not introduce.

You’re right about one narrow point: your meme never literally uses the word **“hate.”** Nice attention to detail. The conclusion you draw from that, however, is logically invalid.

SCI9 used “hate” as shorthand for your meme’s claim that Democrats portray white men as “inherently evil and racist.” That isn’t an unreasonable paraphrase: Merriam-Webster defines 'hate' as “intense hostility and aversion,” and notes that a 'racist' is, by definition, also a 'bigot' — someone who regards or treats a group with “hatred and intolerance.”

And ironically, the rhetoric actually displaying the greater hostility here is yours: you repeatedly attribute an ugly racial belief to an entire political group, without producing evidence that they actually hold it, while the liberal commenters here are simply asking you to substantiate the accusation.
Look for rhetoric that most closely resembles hostility and intolerance, in this comment section.
You see it now? No obviously not....lol.

Back to your only accurate point though: you can fairly say “hate” wasn’t your exact wording.

What you cannot logically say is that SCI9’s choice of that word proves they must have independently “heard or witnessed” liberals hating white men. Your accusation prompted their paraphrase, and then you used their paraphrase as evidence for your accusation. THAT IS CIRCULAR REASONING. We all should expect your next reply to be another convoluted circular reference. And around we go!

The original question remains unanswered:

Which Democratic leaders actually said white men are inherently evil and racist? QUOTE THEM.

For the sake of actual discourse: P R O V I D E T H E Q U O T E.

It's not logically invalid. Your rage rebutal proves that

P R O V I D E T H E Q U O T E please.

How's that? lol

"White people are inherently racist & evil" - Various Democrats.

There you go, it's quoted

This is a profoundly stupid argument.

The meme invents the claim that “Democrats believe white men are inherently evil and racist,” then points to interracial or same-race relationships as if that somehow proves hypocrisy.

It doesn’t.

Criticizing racism is not the same as hating white people. Criticizing unequal systems is not the same as condemning every white man. And loving or marrying a white person does not invalidate criticism of racism any more than having a police officer in your family means you can never criticize police misconduct.

The entire joke depends on deliberately confusing **criticism of racism** with **hatred of white people**.

That’s not clever. It’s a straw man dressed up as a punchline.

And worse, it spreads exactly the kind of racial resentment it pretends to be exposing.

If your argument only works after you invent a hateful belief for the other side and then mock them for believing it, you haven’t exposed their hypocrisy.

You’ve exposed the weakness of your own argument.
You've exposed your weakness. Thank You.

Actually it's not a stupid argument. Because the Democrats that talk about the evil white man are only doing so because they are pandering to folks that actually believe white men are inherently racist. The leaders that do that - can often be seen dating or married to white men.

That's a well typed up response - but I can't say it's very well thought out. Because the only reason this meme is getting upvotes is the truth behind the message.

1. You note criticizing racism isn't the same as hating white people. I never said anyone hated white people, just that they say one thing while dating or married to white men. You're stretching my idea to make your counter point seem appropriate.

2. Your point about having police in the family means you can't criticize cops... Almost hits, but doesn't. Because it's a run-on idea birthed in a topic that I never mentioned - you're stretching my idea again to make your counter point seem appropriate.

3. My joke doesn't depend on confusing criticism of racism with hatred because I never mentioned hatred. It's almost like YOU have hatred for white men & are blindly transposing that into my presented information. Don't know why you have so much hate for white people, but it's glaringly obvious since I didn't mention hatred.

4. Your response isn't clever - because you've introduced a straw man argument about hatred when it was never presented in the information. So you invented a straw man for your response & then accuse me of the straw man argument. Classic. Liberals often say someone else is doing exactly what they themselves are doing with out realizing it, so that's not surprising.

5. It doesn't spread racial resentment - because I never mentioned the racial attributes of the Democrats that say stuff about white men.

6. When the leftists state stuff about white men being inherently racists & then marry or date white men...that's not me inventing anything. That's called observation.

7. Not only did I expose the hypocrisy, I also exposed your own hateful nature of white men, because you showed your hand by bringing hate into the conversation.

You just changed the claim.

The meme says Democrats are saying “the White Man is inherently evil and racist.” Your response provides ZERO quotes from a Democratic leader saying that. Instead, it changes the allegation to “they’re pandering to people who believe it” which is SPECULATION about motive, NOT EVIDENCE.

For comparison, the Democratic Party’s ACTUAL PLATFORM says that laws, policies and institutions can exacerbate disparities or deny equal opportunity, and explicitly calls for combating bias, discrimination and hate. It does NOT say white men are inherently racist or evil. You failed to discern this important distinction. You most likely jump on phrases and soundbites and regurgitate fake news garbage. YOU are the one who points your finger at an entire group and claims EVIL/BAD/WRONG. That's a very immature and actually socially-dangerous mentality.

And the marriage argument still proves nothing.

If someone says “racial discrimination exists in institutions” and marries a white man, there is no contradiction whatsoever.

It would only be hypocrisy if that same person actually said “white men are inherently evil/racist” and then behaved as though they didn’t believe it. You have shown zero (0) (no) evidence to support your own claims.

So this is EASY to settle:

Name the Democrat!!! Provide the exact quote saying white men are inherently racist or evil.

Their spouse is evidence of whom they married. It is not evidence of what they supposedly believe.

And accusing me of secretly “hating white men” because I used the word hate isn’t evidence either. That’s an ad hominem meant to avoid proving the original claim.

No quote = no hypocrisy exposed. Just a meme assigning people a belief and then congratulating itself for disproving the belief it assigned them.**

I didn't change any claim.

Yes, you ABSOLUTELY 100% UNDISPUTEDLY changed the claim.

Here are YOUR OWN WORDS:

{Original:} [Democrats] “are saying that the White Man is inherently evil and racist.”

{Your rebuttal:} [Democrats are] “pandering to folks that actually believe white men are inherently racist.”

Those are two different claims.

(Democrats believe/say X) ≠ (Democrats pander to people who believe X.)

Do....You.....Understand....The..........Distinction...? Probably not.

The first requires an actual quote from the Democrats you accused. The second is speculation about their motives and their audience. Why am I even bothering to spell this out for you?

And “the meme got upvotes” is not evidence that the original claim is true.

So this is extremely simple: provide the Democratic leaders and their exact statements that white men are inherently evil and racist. THAT SHOULD TAKE YOU LIKE 5 MINUTES ON GOOGLE.
You won't because you can't because you're wrong.

Until then, the meme’s central premise remains an unsupported assertion. That’s not my opinion. That’s undisputed basic logic — albeit you need a cursory understanding of the English language and the difference between a stated claim, an inferred motive, and actual evidence, to follow it.

You're not going to win this one. But keep trying this is fun!

Those aren't separate claims - they are literally two different ways of saying the same thing lmao

LMAO no sorry, that’s not how English works.

“Democrats say X” and “Democrats pander to people who believe X” are different claims with different evidence requirements.

One is about what Democrats themselves believe/say.
The other is about what they allegedly think their audience believes.

If those were “literally the same thing,” then quoting someone wouldn’t matter at all.

So again: P R O V I D E T H E Q U O T E.

Have you not seen my profile name? You're not getting anywhere without a source. And around we go. Again and again.

"When Democrats say that white people are inherently racists and evil, they are pandering to their voter base [to create a more common portrayal of something that hardly exists]..." - A Registered Democrat

Who is “A Registered Democrat”?
Par just a name, source, link.
An anonymous sentence repeating your premise is unfortunately not evidence for your premise.

Correction - it's not the evidence you want. Guess you'll have to do your own homework on it

You're slipping.
Evidence I “want”? I asked who said the quote YOU posted.
Read your own original post, OP.
Name + source. That’s not preference; that’s how quotations work. You supplied the quote, so why am I supposed to research its origin for you?
Try again.