Politics Candace Owens (and Crowder beef)

[mellowyellow]

This woman does nothing more than manufacture white outrage, and at this expense of her black community She is the quintessential uncle tom, selling out her cultural heritage to grift on behalf of and for her white masters.

 

[WA ROO]

This woman does nothing more than manufacture white outrage, and at this expense of her black community She is the quintessential uncle tom, selling out her cultural heritage to grift on behalf of and for her white masters.

So uppity black woman should only have opinions you approve of?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

This woman does nothing more than manufacture white outrage, and at this expense of her black community She is the quintessential uncle tom, selling out her cultural heritage to grift on behalf of and for her white masters.

So uppity black woman should only have opinions you approve of?

Skin colour shouldn't be playing a deciding factor in politics, true. But this statement can only be true in a wholly inclusive and equal society.

The history of the African-American in the United States is fully one of a long and drawn-out struggle for an equal footing within that nation. They were once little more than beasts-of-burden. They've had to fight and they fought HARD to get to where they are now.

I don't really like the 'Uncle Tom' narrative. Candace Owens has her own political agency because, after all, a massive part of the Civil Rights struggle was exactly one of Voice. She has hers and she is more than entitled to it.

But aligning herself to the have/have-not principles of conservative politics, be it fiscal or social, looks to be a slap to the face of her African-American history and dare I say it, a slap to the face of anyone interested in a just and inclusive civil society.

It's like an Irish Monarchist. They exist and have the right to exist every bit as much as conservative African-Americans but its the mindset of 'why?' that I don't get. How and why do they exist when their current political values cut straight against the struggles that their people endured? It's not like that struggle is over, either.

The continued rise of the far/racist right in that nation and its increasing intermarriage with both the religious right and what remains of the conservative mainstream mean that elements of her own 'team' will be looking to turn on her and others like her if they get back into office.

How can they have lost sight of their past? How can they know where they stand now if they don't know where it is that they came from? That the long, hard fight for inclusion be honoured, not spat upon?

 

[sdfc]

Skin colour shouldn't be playing a deciding factor in politics, true. But this statement can only be true in a wholly inclusive and equal society.

The history of the African-American in the United States is fully one of a long and drawn-out struggle for an equal footing within that nation. They were once little more than beasts-of-burden. They've had to fight and they fought HARD to get to where they are now.

I don't really like the 'Uncle Tom' narrative. Candace Owens has her own political agency because, after all, a massive part of the Civil Rights struggle was exactly one of Voice. She has hers and she is more than entitled to it.

But aligning herself to the have/have-not principles of conservative politics, be it fiscal or social, looks to be a slap to the face of her African-American history and dare I say it, a slap to the face of anyone interested in a just and inclusive civil society.

It's like an Irish Monarchist. They exist and have the right to exist every bit as much as conservative African-Americans but its the mindset of 'why?' that I don't get. How and why do they exist when their current political values cut straight against the struggles that their people endured? It's not like that struggle is over, either.

The continued rise of the far/racist right in that nation and its increasing intermarriage with both the religious right and what remains of the conservative mainstream mean that elements of her own 'team' will be looking to turn on her and others like her if they get back into office.

How can they have lost sight of their past? How can they know where they stand now if they don't know where it is that they came from? That the long, hard fight for inclusion be honoured, not spat upon?

Black people are individuals just like white people. You're confused because you seem to only see people as members of groups.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Black people are individuals just like white people. You're confused because you seem to only see people as members of groups.

I covered that;

"I don't really like the 'Uncle Tom' narrative. Candace Owens has her own political agency because, after all, a massive part of the Civil Rights struggle was exactly one of Voice. She has hers and she is more than entitled to it."

I know she has every right as an individual to side with and advocate for whichever political viewpoint she chooses to.

I just don't know why she picked conservative. Me being Irish I drew a comparison to Irish Monarchists. I've met some. They exist. They have every right to exist.

I just don't know why, given Ireland's past, they DO exist.

Exact same thing with Australia's own Jacinta Price. She has every right as an individual as well as an indigenous woman to hold to conservative viewpoints and to express them freely.

I just want to know how and why?

 

[sdfc]

I covered that;

"I don't really like the 'Uncle Tom' narrative. Candace Owens has her own political agency because, after all, a massive part of the Civil Rights struggle was exactly one of Voice. She has hers and she is more than entitled to it."

I know she has every right as an individual to side with and advocate for whichever political viewpoint she chooses to.

I just don't know why she picked conservative. Me being Irish I drew a comparison to Irish Monarchists. I've met some. They exist. They have every right to exist.

I just don't know why, given Ireland's past, they DO exist.

Exact same thing with Australia's own Jacinta Price. She has every right as an individual as well as an indigenous woman to hold to conservative viewpoints and to express them freely.

I just want to know how and why?

Why do you want to know why? I doubt either of them woke up one day and decided to pick an ideology. How do other people form political views?

Criticize their views sure, but their skin colour is irrelevant.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Why do you want to know why? I doubt either of them woke up one day and decided to pick an ideology. How do other people form political views?

Criticize their views sure, but their skin colour is irrelevant.

Just informs the debate I reckon. Maybe I'm just weird like that

 

[Gethelred]

Criticize their views sure, but their skin colour is irrelevant.

... how does one conclude that, given a) the race soaked history of America, and b) the fact that the opinions she has shared at times have concerned racial themes?

 

[sdfc]

... how does one conclude that, given a) the race soaked history of America, and b) the fact that the opinions she has shared at times have concerned racial themes?

So black people should think how you think they should.

 

[Gethelred]

So black people should think how you think they should.

If you try to further put words I didn't say into my posts, could you at least try to make it funny?

 

[sdfc]

If you try to further put words I didn't say into my posts, could you at least try to make it funny?

So you agree her race doesn't matter.

 

[Gethelred]

So you agree her race doesn't matter.

... tell me, when someone tells you not to do something away from a keyboard, do you just up and proceed to keep doing it?

It's rather annoying, SD.

 

[O Grobbecker]

... Me being Irish I drew a comparison to Irish Monarchists. I've met some. They exist. They have every right to exist.

I just don't know why, given Ireland's past, they DO exist.

.....

I just want to know how and why?

The Proclamation of the Irish Republic 1916,the Anglo-Irish war ended in 1922, the Constitution enacted in 1937, Ireland joined the EU in 1973, abandonment of Constitutional claim for the whole of the island of Ireland in 1999, the late Queen visited Ireland as a foreign Monarch in 2011 at the invitation of the President, 2018 Agreement that the RAF will protect Irish airspace. That old Britain-Ireland antipathy is fast disappearing. History is to be learned from, not to entrap. I imagine that Irish monarchists have a number of reasons for their preference, old emnity not being one. Owens, Petersen, Price all preach personal responsibility and not being bound by history or stereotypes.

 

[Schneebly11]

That old Britain-Ireland antipathy is fast disappearing.

Did you listen to the Irish sports crowds booing the Queen after her death, let alone before it?

History is to be learned from, not to entrap. Owens, Petersen, Price all preach personal responsibility and not being bound by history or stereotypes.

Funny because half of Petersen’s whinging is about Marxism and Communism. Price refuses to fully acknowledge what was done to Indigenous Australians to appease her RW fan base.

And Owens is the worst of all, did we all forget the “Hitler just wanted to make Germany great again, he was fine until he went outside his borders”?

These people don’t have the first clue about history

 

[O Grobbecker]

“Hitler just wanted to make Germany great again, he was fine until he went outside his borders”?

What Owens said was

“But if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, OK, fine. The problem is that he wanted — he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German, everybody to be speaking German. Everybody to look a different way. To me, that’s not nationalism. In thinking about how we could go bad down the line, I don’t really have an issue with nationalism. I really don’t.” London Feb 2019

That's very different from your version.

 

[bourbons]

Funny because half of Petersen’s whinging is about Marxism and Communism. Price refuses to fully acknowledge what was done to Indigenous Australians to appease her RW fan base.

And Owens is the worst of all, did we all forget the “Hitler just wanted to make Germany great again, he was fine until he went outside his borders”?

These people don’t have the first clue about history

Yep. Owens' opinions are usually just straight trash no matter what colour you are.

And "personal responsibility"? Not sure about that lol. She certainly seems to think the guy making objectively unhinged anti-semitic statements bears no blame, somehow the reaction he got seems to be everyone else's fault.

 

[bourbons]

What Owens said was

“But if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, OK, fine. The problem is that he wanted — he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German, everybody to be speaking German. Everybody to look a different way. To me, that’s not nationalism. In thinking about how we could go bad down the line, I don’t really have an issue with nationalism. I really don’t.” London Feb 2019

That's very different from your version.

"But if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, OK, fine. The problem is that he wanted — he had dreams outside of Germany."

She does seem to be stating the main problem was merely that he acted beyond his own borders - surely we're not pretending all Hitler wanted was for things "to be great and run well", in Germany or otherwise

 

[Ohitsthatguy]

Why do you want to know why? I doubt either of them woke up one day and decided to pick an ideology. How do other people form political views?

Well...

"I became a conservative overnight ... I realized that liberals were actually the racists. Liberals were actually the trolls ... Social Autopsy is why I'm conservative."

Her own words.

 

[O Grobbecker]

"But if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, OK, fine. The problem is that he wanted — he had dreams outside of Germany."

.... surely we're not pretending all Hitler wanted was for things "to be great and run well", in Germany or otherwise

Of course not, that's her point, if all he wanted to do was to do was to improve Germany, that's fine, but she and we all know that he wanted much more. Don't go looking for interpretations to suit your ideology, accept what she said in its plain meaning.

 

[bourbons]

Of course not, that's her point, if all he wanted to do was to do was to improve Germany, that's fine, but she and we all know that he wanted much more.

Thas not what she said though. She specifically stated the main problem she saw with him, and it categorically wasn't that he went far beyond "Germany to be great and things to run well" - it was that he acted beyond his own borders. "The problem is that he wanted — he had dreams outside of Germany". No mention at all that what he was doing inside Germany was also an issue.

Extrapolating what you have as 'her point' based on those words is... a stretch. Jordy Peterson for example has advocated use of precise language while struggling to do so himself (lately) but thats next level.

Don't go looking for interpretations to suit your ideology, accept what she said in its plain meaning.

I would argue looking for an interpretation is exactly what you're doing here. She's either been very, very careless with her words or 'what she said in its plain meaning' is very, very average.

 

[Schneebly11]

What Owens said was

“But if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, OK, fine. The problem is that he wanted — he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German, everybody to be speaking German. Everybody to look a different way. To me, that’s not nationalism. In thinking about how we could go bad down the line, I don’t really have an issue with nationalism. I really don’t.” London Feb 2019

That's very different from your version.

Hitler’s version of “Make Germany Great” involved coming into power via violence and illegal actions, then instituting racist and immoral policies to oppress the population, murder his opponents, get rid of the “undesirables”. Candace said that the “problem” started when he wanted to do this “outside of Germany”. Candace hasn’t indicated she had a problem with Hitler’s actions inside of Germany.

The only problem for her when was he became, in her opinion, a “globalist”. But any basic reading of Hitler’s comments shows that Hitler railed against Jews and Communists as he thought they were the “globalists” of the day, trying to steal money and rights from “real Germans”. He was a nationalist, the opposite of a globalist. Again Candace Owens doesn’t have a clue about what she’s speaking about.

Anyway why are we talking about this brainless American? She contributes nothing of value to any conversation and should go the way of Milo Yiannopolous (consigned to the dustbin).

 

[O Grobbecker]

Hitler’s version of “Make Germany Great” involved coming into power via violence and illegal actions, then instituting racist and immoral policies to oppress the population, murder his opponents, get rid of the “undesirables”. Candace said that the “problem” started when he wanted to do this “outside of Germany”. Candace hasn’t indicated she had a problem with Hitler’s actions inside of Germany.

The only problem for her when was he became, in her opinion, a “globalist”. But any basic reading of Hitler’s comments shows that Hitler railed against Jews and Communists as he thought they were the “globalists” of the day, trying to steal money and rights from “real Germans”. He was a nationalist, the opposite of a globalist. Again Candace Owens doesn’t have a clue about what she’s speaking about.

Anyway why are we talking about this brainless American? She contributes nothing of value to any conversation and should go the way of Milo Yiannopolous (consigned to the dustbin).

The statement came in answer to a question put to her at a Press Conference. She was talking about nationalism v globalisation. The reporter put the question to her ,” but what about Hitler, he was a nationalist…”. She wasn’t asked nor was she giving her opinion of Hitler, his policies, just that he was a nationalist. Her answer shows that she regarded him as a globalist rather than a nationalist. Now go back and read up to the first comma. You and Bourbans can’t criticise her for not answering a question she wasn’t asked.

 

[Schneebly11]

The statement came in answer to a question put to her at a Press Conference. She was talking about nationalism v globalisation. The reporter put the question to her ,” but what about Hitler, he was a nationalist…”. She wasn’t asked nor was she giving her opinion of Hitler, his policies, just that he was a nationalist. Her answer shows that she regarded him as a globalist rather than a nationalist. Now go back and read up to the first comma. You and Bourbans can’t criticise her for not answering a question she wasn’t asked.

She said “OK, fine” when talking about Hitler’s internal plans (Make Germany Great Again), but clearly said the problem was when he wanted to do outside of Germany. So by definition, when you say “the problem is” what follows is the thing you find bad, not the thing you said before.

(Her characterisation of Hitler as a Globalist was also deeply incorrect).

Anyway she’s not just a dumbass on WW2, she’s also doesn’t have a clue about slavery.

I love a good Prager U debunking video (it’s like shooting fish in a barrel).

 

[O Grobbecker]

She said “OK, fine” when talking about Hitler’s internal plans (Make Germany Great Again), but clearly said the problem was when he wanted to do outside of Germany. So by definition, when you say “the problem is” what follows is the thing you find bad, not the thing you said before.

(Her characterisation of Hitler as a Globalist was also deeply incorrect).

Anyway she’s not just a dumbass on WW2, she’s also doesn’t have a clue about slavery.

I love a good Prager U debunking video (it’s like shooting fish in a barrel).

Obtuse. You have had 3 goes now, all wrong. You started off by leaving out “But if”. and her explanation of what she means by “make Germany great”, “…and have things run well”. You then substitute your own version of what you say she means by “”make Germany great”, pretending she didn’t give her own explanation. Worse than obtuse, dishonest.

 

[bourbons]

The statement came in answer to a question put to her at a Press Conference. She was talking about nationalism v globalisation. The reporter put the question to her ,” but what about Hitler, he was a nationalist…”. She wasn’t asked nor was she giving her opinion of Hitler, his policies, just that he was a nationalist. Her answer shows that she regarded him as a globalist rather than a nationalist. Now go back and read up to the first comma. You and Bourbans can’t criticise her for not answering a question she wasn’t asked.

Nope, the question was about the "long-term prognosis about the terms 'globalism' and 'nationalism' ". Candace herself introduced the Hitler angle, here's the full quote;

I actually don't have any problems at all with the word "nationalism". I think that the definition gets poisoned by elitists that actually want globalism. Globalism is what I don't want. Whenever we say "nationalism" the first thing people think about, at least in America, is Hitler. You know, [Hitler] was a national socialist, but if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, okay, fine. The problem is that he wanted—he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German, everybody to be speaking German. Everybody to look a different way. That's not, to me, that's not nationalism.