Laura Ingraham’s Anti-Immigrant Rant Was So Racist It Was Endorsed by Ex-KKK Leader David Duke

[Annie Proclivite]

Ingraham is flustered to learn that the KKK likes her stuff. Her problem is that she thinks that the only reason is that there's something wrong with the KKK.

Why is it that you think black Americans can have groups like the NAACP that represent their interests, and Hispanics can have groups like La Raza (the Race) that represent their interest, but as soon as white Americans start to advocate for their interests you associate them with the KKK? That isn't fair and speaks volumes about your bias against your own race.

 

[The Barbarian]

Why is it that you think black Americans can have groups like the NAACP that represent their interests,

I said that? (Barbarian checks) No, turns out, I didn't. But I can understand why Ingraham and the KKK would be upset about non-whites trying to get the same rights as white people. They appear to think that if everyone has the same rights, they lose something thereby.

and Hispanics can have groups like La Raza (the Race)

The only use of "La Raza" I know of is for an ethnic group. (Barbarian checks) Turns out, there was an advocacy group called "La Raza", but not now.

that represent their interest, but as soon as white Americans start to advocate for their interests you associate them with the KKK?

Ingraham's rant got the approval and backing of the KKK, because she was saying the things they've been saying. Why should that surprise you? And of course, neither Ingraham nor the KKK advocates for anything in the interests of white Americans, the vast majority of which who want nothing to with that kind of racism. Even most republicans have turned their backs on racism. Racial hatred benefits no one.

That isn't fair

My Dad used to say that if you handle filth, you shouldn't be surprised if you get dirty hands. If Laura doesn't want to be associated with the Klan, then she shouldn't be advocating their agenda.

and speaks volumes about your bias against your own race.

Here's a hint: you don't have to hate other ethnic groups to be proud of your own. Ingraham's racist bilge got the attention of the KKK; it got the attention of decent people, too. They just reacted differently.

 

[Annie Proclivite]

I said that? (Barbarian checks) No, turns out, I didn't. But I can understand why Ingraham and the KKK would be upset about non-whites trying to get the same rights as white people. They appear to think that if everyone has the same rights, they lose something thereby.



The only use of "La Raza" I know of is for an ethnic group. (Barbarian checks) Turns out, there was an advocacy group called "La Raza", but not now.



Ingraham's rant got the approval and backing of the KKK, because she was saying the things they've been saying. Why should that surprise you? And of course, neither Ingraham nor the KKK advocates for anything in the interests of white Americans, the vast majority of which who want nothing to with that kind of racism. Even most republicans have turned their backs on racism. Racial hatred benefits no one.



My Dad used to say that if you handle filth, you shouldn't be surprised if you get dirty hands. If Laura doesn't want to be associated with the Klan, then she shouldn't be advocating their agenda.



Here's a hint: you don't have to hate other ethnic groups to be proud of your own. Ingraham's racist bilge got the attention of the KKK; it got the attention of decent people, too. They just reacted differently.

Would it matter if a necrophile supported Laura Ingram's opinion? You should focus on the actual substance of her argument instead of making a guilt by association fallacy.

 

[tulc]

Would it matter if a necrophile supported Laura Ingram's opinion? You should focus on the actual substance of her argument instead of making a guilt by association fallacy.

...if a necrophiliac posted on line about how much something you said he agreed with, wouldn't that give you pause? Maybe even make you go back (like Laura Ingram did) and explain a little more fully what your point was, maybe even distance yourself from them?
tulc(has found he sometimes questions a position he takes once he realizes who else takes that position)

 

[Annie Proclivite]

...if a necrophiliac posted on line about how much something you said he agreed with, wouldn't that give you pause? Maybe even make you go back (like Laura Ingram did) and explain a little more fully what your point was, maybe even distance yourself from them?
tulc(has found he sometimes questions a position he takes once he realizes who else takes that position)

Well, I guess it would a little. I was using hyperbole to illustrate a point: that opinions of other people don't discredit the message.

 

[tulc]

Well, I guess it would a little. I was using hyperbole to illustrate a point: that opinions of other people don't discredit the message.

That's true, but again, sometimes the people who you find supporting the things you say are a pretty good way to determine if what you're saying is a good thing. For instance, if you find yourself being cheered on by Nazi's and Klansmen? That might be a good time to make sure you're being very clear on what you're not saying, if you see what I mean. it can be...disconcerting when someone points out a ramification of a position that you hold that you never even thought of, let alone want others to think you support that aspect of it.
tulc(just something that he thought should be pointed out)

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

Would it matter if a necrophile supported Laura Ingram's opinion? You should focus on the actual substance of her argument instead of making a guilt by association fallacy.

Ingram made racist rant. This is not guilt by association fallacy. Here is explanation to make a good fit of your example:

If you are having the talk about what you like to do to have "fun" with the dead bodies and the necrophile cheers your talk then I think this is the confirmation that you might be the necrophile also.

 

[Annie Proclivite]

Ingram made racist rant. This is not guilt by association fallacy. Here is explanation to make a good fit of your example:

If you are having the talk about what you like to do to have "fun" with the dead bodies and the necrophile cheers your talk then I think this is the confirmation that you might be the necrophile also.

So you're basically saying that if such and such racist boogeyman likes Star Wars, then Star Wars must be racist. Makes perfect sense!

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

So you're basically saying that if such and such racist boogeyman likes Star Wars, then Star Wars must be racist. Makes perfect sense!

You seem to be having the reading difficulties because this has nothing in common with I post. Maybe you quote wrong person?

 

[Jamsie]

So you're basically saying that if such and such racist boogeyman likes Star Wars, then Star Wars must be racist. Makes perfect sense!

Faulty analogy or comparison...but you knew that.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

...if a necrophiliac posted on line about how much something you said he agreed with, wouldn't that give you pause? Maybe even make you go back (like Laura Ingram did) and explain a little more fully what your point was, maybe even distance yourself from them?
tulc(has found he sometimes questions a position he takes once he realizes who else takes that position)

What a nonsensical question. What if I say I love coffee, and an ax murderer (or your hypothetical necrophiliac) says he loves coffee too, thereby agreeing with me, does that give me pause or make me distance myself from my assertion?

Um, NO. Who cares.

Lots of people approve or disapprove of various policies as well, for various reasons. If your positions are reevaluated because of who agrees or disagrees, you are subject to the classic argument from authority fallacy.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/david...st-important-monologues-in-history?ref=scroll

tulc(interesting article)

The article itself is a biased rant. Look at this language, all unsubstantiated:

How article was worded: Ingraham’s fellow Fox News host Tucker Carlson also echoed white nationalist rhetoric when he said immigrants were leading to “the collapse of the American family” in June.

What Tucker actually said: You think any of these people really care about family separation?” Carlson said of liberals. “If they did, they’d be worried about the collapse of the American family, which is measurable and real, but they’re not worried about that. In fact they welcome that collapse because strong families are an impediment to their political power, and that’s why they’re always lecturing you about the patriarchy and the evil of the nuclear family.”

What??....not one word about "immigrants are bad", as the op-ed piece writer says. He simply pointed out the disingenuousness of liberals.

About Ingraham, what the article said: Fox News anchor Laura Ingraham’s Wednesday night monologue about immigrants destroying America was so racist it got the endorsement of David Duke, the former leader of the Ku Klux Klan. (Guilt by association fallacy).

Article: Ingraham and Carlson’s monologues borrowed the rhetoric of what white nationalists falsely call “white genocide,” an innuendo that refers to racist fears about people of color coming to outnumber white people in the United States. A large segment of white nationalists also hitch their fears to the claim that the left and/or Jewish people are encouraging immigration to dilute the white race.

What Ingraham actually said: Americans believe in borders and Democrats believe enforcing immigration laws are essentially a human rights violation.

And NEITHER said anything about white genocide or Jewish people! Not a word.

Read news sources, not propaganda.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

Article: Ingraham and Carlson’s monologues borrowed the rhetoric of what white nationalists falsely call “white genocide,” an innuendo that refers to racist fears about people of color coming to outnumber white people in the United States. A large segment of white nationalists also hitch their fears to the claim that the left and/or Jewish people are encouraging immigration to dilute the white race.

What Ingraham actually said: Americans believe in borders and Democrats believe enforcing immigration laws are essentially a human rights violation.

I do not think you had an accurate watch of this video as you appear to not have seen the part under the discussion. Watch again with the closer eye.

 

[The Barbarian]

Would it matter if a necrophile supported Laura Ingram's opinion?

If she endorsed necrophilia, as she endorsed racist beliefs? Yeah, that would matter.

You should focus on the actual substance of her argument

You seem to be rather upset that racists focused on her endorsement of their beliefs.

instead of making a guilt by association fallacy.

Racists are in a dither because America is going through another of its many periods of immigration, all of which strengthened and enriched America, as this one is. So is Ingraham. If she doesn't want to be classified with them, she should stop acting like them.

 

[The Barbarian]

What Ingraham actually said: Americans believe in borders and Democrats believe enforcing immigration laws are essentially a human rights violation.

Yeah she said that. But as you know, Obama deported more illegal immigrants than any president before him. Either Obama isn't a democrat, or Ingraham is a liar. Your choice.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Yeah she said that. But as you know, Obama deported more illegal immigrants than any president before him. Either Obama isn't a democrat, or Ingraham is a liar. Your choice.

Sure, they redefined what constitutes a deportation.

From Snopes:
As of 2015, more than 2.5 million undocumented persons had been deported by immigration authorities since President Obama took office in 2009, a total which was statistically record-setting. During the two terms of Obama’s predecessor, President George W. Bush, just over 2 million people were deported.

However, that statistic is somewhat misleading, as a significant portion of it was due to a change in the way “deportations” are defined that began during the Bush administration, not in the actual number of persons turned out of the U.S. As the Los Angeles Times noted, if not for that change in definition about what constitutes a “deportation,” the Obama administration likely would not have been a record-setting one in this area.

Before, border crossers were just turned back, not formally charged and fingerprinted and counted in the statistics. So this claim is meaningless.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-deported-more-people/

 

[The Barbarian]

Sure, they redefined what constitutes a deportation.

However, that statistic is somewhat misleading, as a significant portion of it was due to a change in the way “deportations” are defined that began during the Bush administration, not in the actual number of persons turned out of the U.S. As the Los Angeles Times noted, if not for that change in definition about what constitutes a “deportation,” the Obama administration likely would not have been a record-setting one in this area.

Since that method of counting was also used in the Bush administration, as your source acknowledges, Obama still comes out ahead, having deported more people than any previous president. But even if he had come out second, the fact remains.

Either Obama is not a democrat, or Ingraham is a liar.

Your choice.