Are these two for real?

[Citizen's Nephew]

Re: Are these two for real?

And even if all that is true, Walz’s “white guy” remarks were still a case of him laughing at himself - it’s very strange that they should be remarked upon in the manner they were in James Wales’ first post in this thread.

I’m of the opinion there’s nothing strange about it Bob. It’s just another in a long line of drip fed divisive tropes by right wing posters cynically dressed up as a silencing tactic. It’s exposed and ‘called out’.

[Eric Cartman]

Re: Are these two for real?

It was those who would have castigated the Tories for doing what Reeves did but happily defend Labour.

I can't speak for anybody else but in my case you have got that completely wrong because I have been calling for the winter fuel allowance to be means tested for a few years now and would have quite happily supported the decision to do so regardless of party.

[cyril evans awaydays]

Re: Are these two for real?

I'm not sure that endearment has worked has it..

Why are you talking about snowflakes and the wokerati? Weird.

1. Since Harris and Walz became the Democratic ticket, according to polling they have had a disproportionate impact in getting independents and undecided voters to favour them. This in turn is seeing them either eat into or overtake Trump in the battleground states. Perhaps you have some obscure article to disprove this to support your view that endearment isn't working.

2. I am surprised that a man of your proclaimed intellect didn't realise that I was suggesting your recent angst about white man tacos and the order of the BBC News online is making you come across a little over-emotional and easily offended.

[JamesWales]

Re: Are these two for real?

You are such a condescending, belittling individual James. Arrogant. For what it's worth, the reason it probably reads like an ai response is because it's how I write. I pretty much dumb it down the rest of the time in order to 'fit in' but in your case I thought I'd offer you the courtesy of giving you both academic and journalistic barrels you sniffling little, pompous ****.

Now **** off and go and wank over a picture of Suella Braverman. I'm done with you. You are nothing to me and I would suggest that the best way to deal with you is to deny you the oxygen you crave.

Take some time out because this is a truly ridiculous response. And if you don't want to be belittled, don't do it to others. 👍

[JamesWales]

Re: Are these two for real?

1. Since Harris and Walz became the Democratic ticket, according to polling they have had a disproportionate impact in getting independents and undecided voters to favour them. This in turn is seeing them either eat into or overtake Trump in the battleground states. Perhaps you have some obscure article to disprove this to support your view that endearment isn't working.

2. I am surprised that a man of your proclaimed intellect didn't realise that I was suggesting your recent angst about white man tacos and the order of the BBC News online is making you come across a little over-emotional and easily offended.

1 - I was referring specifically to this strange little video. More generally they are polling better than Biden did though!

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/harris-walzs-racist-banter-about-white-guy-tacos-spurs-social-media-backlash

https://www.newsweek.com/tim-walz-accused-lying-about-his-white-guy-tacos-1940202

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/like-a-minstrel-show-tim-walz-receives-heat-after-joking-with-kamala-harris-about-spice-less-white-guy-food/ar-AA1oT03E

2 - Pointing out a couple of observations on two entirely unrelated topics is not "over emotional". Feeling compelled to respond at length to these non-issues may be a sign you are though?

[JamesWales]

Re: Are these two for real?

And yet you’re the one who brought it up in this thread.

Because I'm criticizing those that do it. 🤷.

[cyril evans awaydays]

Re: Are these two for real?

1 - I was referring specifically to this strange little video. More generally they are polling better than Biden did though!

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/harris-walzs-racist-banter-about-white-guy-tacos-spurs-social-media-backlash

https://www.newsweek.com/tim-walz-accused-lying-about-his-white-guy-tacos-1940202

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/like-a-minstrel-show-tim-walz-receives-heat-after-joking-with-kamala-harris-about-spice-less-white-guy-food/ar-AA1oT03E

2 - Pointing out a couple of observations on two entirely unrelated topics is not "over emotional". Feeling compelled to respond at length to these non-issues may be a sign you are though?

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4831982-tim-walz-vp-nominee-favorability/

[JamesWales]

Re: Are these two for real?

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...-favorability/

As I said Cyril, I was talking about video in particular, not the wider campaign.

The polls are way tighter than they were and Harris slightly in the lead according to most!

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4827276-harris-trump-battleground-states-cook/

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Are these two for real?

Because I'm criticizing those that do it. ��.

You want it all ways don’t you - you’re only bringing up race because he did, yeah right.

[cyril evans awaydays]

Re: Are these two for real?

As I said Cyril, I was talking about video in particular, not the wider campaign.

The polls are way tighter than they were and Harris slightly in the lead according to most!

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...d-states-cook/

So now the "backlash" when you add the original Daily Mail one that you didn't see were three articles all referencing a David Marcus of Fox news as the source of the hand-wringing and a couple of random people on X. A truly representative sample to make a point!

[JamesWales]

Re: Are these two for real?

You want it all ways don’t you - you’re only bringing up race because he did, yeah right.

That's correct. Why wouldn't it be?

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Are these two for real?

So now the "backlash" when you add the original Daily Mail one that you didn't see were three articles all referencing a David Marcus of Fox news as the source of the hand-wringing and a couple of random people on X. A truly representative sample to make a point!

Articles like those just serve to reinforce your point that the snowflake label should be equally applied to those who claimed the word as their own - in fact, it seems to me that they’re more deserving of it most of the time.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Are these two for real?

That's correct. Why wouldn't it be?

So says the guy who defended the Rwanda policy more than anyone on here and argued that the riots emanating from the Southport murders were not racially motivated.

[JamesWales]

Re: Are these two for real?

So now the "backlash" when you add the original Daily Mail one that you didn't see were three articles all referencing a David Marcus of Fox news as the source of the hand-wringing and a couple of random people on X. A truly representative sample to make a point!

I love how articles from America' most watched news channel somehow don't count.

[JamesWales]

Re: Are these two for real?

So says the guy who defended the Rwanda policy more than anyone on here and argued that the riots emanating from the Southport murders were not racially motivated.

I think had Rwanda happened then Southport riots quite possibly wouldn't have. That's a large part of thinking it was a good idea to have that deterrent.

I've never said there was no racial motive at all. I've said it was more complex than that. You want a simple narrative to it because it's convenient politically but that doesn't make it true