By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 said:
badgenome said:
It's pretty hilarious how hawking virulently racist newsletters is A-OK if you're internet popular. And if you're not internet popular, then being a white conservative means you're presumed racist until it can be proven otherwise (which, of course, it can't be).


It's no different then the rampantly sexism employed against the people Julian Assange raped, and against Hilarly Clinton by various people backing Barak Obama.  That was all tolerated as well. 

In general, all you need to do to get a pass is to NOT be a conservative.

I think popularity trumps whether or not someone is a conservative. Although it's true that conservatives tend not to be popular on the interwebs, Paul is in some regards the most conservative candidate. And not just in that oh-so-hip "fiscally conservative/socially liberal" way, at least if you believe the people who've worked for him who say he absolutely hates gays (after seeing Bruno, I can believe it). But he's "cool" for whatever reason, so who gives a shit about his dealings with racists? Especially when Rick Santorum wears a sweater vest and is so NOT cool!

The dynamic was similar with Obama and Clinton. I don't know that Clintons are more conservative than Obama. I'd say they're merely more politically pragmatic. All that mattered was that Obama was a fucking dreamboat, and Hillary was old news compared to that hot shit. So when it came out that Obama had spent 20 years listening to a horrendous racist like Jeremiah Wright, everyone ultimately decided it didn't matter because Obama was just sooooooooo kewl. Then when Obama's surrogates tarred Hillary, Geraldine Ferraro, and even the former "first black president" Bill as racists, it actually kind of stuck. Thus proving yet again that most people are unprincipled dickholes, and if they hate someone, that person can do no right, and if they love someone, that person can do no wrong in their eyes.