While that is generally the rule, I found this one to be the exception. There are a few things New York city is known for, let alone every other major city in the world.
They were using the bike locks to claim that the protesters had ties to terrorist organizations, because “it’s not the kind of thing a normal student has.”
Despite the fact that the exact model of bike lock was part of a deal on bike locks advertised by the CU campus security on Facebook not 6 weeks ago.
I mean, let’s think about it step by step. The protesters used bike locks, having a bike lock implies having a bike, having a bike implies using it, using a bike implies you’re riding it for transportation. That obviously means that the infiltrators are from Europe (most likely, Netherlands)
The governor of NY, and former cop, justified the police response to the anti-genocide protests at Columbia with a statement about “outside agitators”. When pressed on that, the governor essentially said it was a gut feeling.
cop got on the news and used a bike lock chain that was used to barricade the building as “proof” that the protestors were infiltrated by professional agitators, because it was an “industrial chain” or something like that. its the bike lock that Columbia University itself recommends to students.
Let me guess, hardened steel? Because that’s how you keep your bike from getting stolen in New York. Kryptonite calls it the “fahgettaboudit” lock for a reason.
The entire conservative, pro cop playbook is “say silly things, pretend you don’t know they’re silly”.
And if anyone calls you out, act offended. Everyone knows if you are offended you are right. Growing up in a religious household it’s incredible how many times I saw someone use, “You’re rude therefore you are wrong” as a core tenant of “debate”.
The ‘victim card’ is the conservative ‘race card’.
Possibly so.
When they say the “first” I cannot tell if they mean the first one I mentioned or the first one they mentioned.
Relative references in language is confusing!
When conservatives fearmonger about immigrants and brown people, one of the current favorite talking points is to say they’re “military-aged.” It’s vague and meaningless, but it implies something sinister, and plays into just about any conspiracy theory an audience member might be inclined to believe.
On top of that, they’re afraid from merely seeing these people. They’re just scared to death of brown and black kids and young adults.
In this context that probably means something around “traumatized and depressed by the military regime in the place where they come from”
But they don’t always come from places with such regimes and/or wars, while local citizens are also traumatized and depressed just for a different reason
At least in the contexts I’m talking about, and I’ve never seen it used in another, it’s really not that. It’s coming from talking heads fearmongering about nonwhites, portraying nonwhite immigrants as criminals, ginning up a “border crisis” narrative, and even calling it an “invasion.”
Yeah, pretty much. It ties into the “white genocide” and “great replacement” conspiracy theories, where the mere existence of nonwhites is taken as violence. It also often blames Jews for orchestrating it. It doesn’t make any sense, but it appeals to paranoia and supremacy, and provides a scapegoat for literally any actual systemic problem.
Add comment