Given back? Don't be silly, some Alaskan patriots merely voted to join Russia.

Let's check in with a former Alaskan governor:


As Chris Hayes said, this is barely a dog whistle.

wtf, that's a real tweet... I didn't follow the link, but jfc

It's getting to the breaking point.

If 37% of Americans are ok with that, I don't want to live here.

There's no 14 word phrase in Trump's speech. There's like no ambiguity in Palin's tweet. Why not just say "here's 88 reasons to love Trump's speech?"

In before a bunch of right-wingers show up claiming pedantic egghead liberals are always playing the race card and counting words, why who could even KNOW what 14 words are, why it matters, no one knows, except race baiting liberals.

https://twitter.com/sunnyright/statu...98742522470403

So, it's an automated headline written by... an intern at Facebook? an intern at the base site (youngcons dot com)?

I never heard of 14 words or weird finger white supremacy slogans and all this other bull**** until trump ran. WAAF.

Machine learning turns out some fascinating results, I guess. Reminds me of this:

Twitter taught Microsoft’s AI chatbot to be a racist ******* in less than a day

Meh, I don't twitter and don't use the app and don't know, but when you look at her twitter on the website

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA

it just looks like one of her posts.

If you check the source code of the blog, it looks like the "14 words..." title was the original before they updated it:
<meta property="og:title" content="Trump Gives Speech to the People of Poland, Says 14 Words That Leave Americans Stunned"/>
<meta name="twitter:title" content="While Overseas Trump Hails Populist Poland, Declares West Must 'Defend Civilization’ and ‘Faith’"/>

I know enough to know that whenever you want to share a link it can come preloaded with a title that you may or may not want to keep. So anybody who shared that facebook post on twitter (if they don't change the default) is going to show that headline as their tweet. Most don't notice and just share it.

Ok, but she's tweeted since then. It's been commented on. At some point, and it's probably already happened, that tweet remaining up is functionally equivalent to her writing it.

It's the metadata of the article. Highly unlikely that Palin wrote it. She just shared and that's what came up.

With the website being youngcons.com, I'm not surprised that's included in there.

Watching these writers including one New York Times writer in particular twist themselves into knots on Twitter and elsewhere trying to pretend like there is absolutely no context to the speech is really incredible. It's reminiscent of the Zimmerman trial, when certain conservative posters would take certain weird details completely out of context and run with them for pages and pages, spinning these interesting tales that make perfect sense as long as you have absolutely no context as to what actually happened. And that seems to be the world many are living in. Today I got a flyer for an Alabama Senator: it was him bragging that he voted wholeheartedly for Trump, unlike his opponent. Nothing about policy, nothing about healthcare. On the radio, people are discussing how terrible the idea of government health care is and how health care is a responsibility, not a right. They point out the "cruel and heartless" nature of the baby Charlie situation, but then they endorse the RepubliCare plan, which is even more cruel and heartless than the current free market system we live under. It's really incredible.

There is an alternative viewpoint, but it's that "post-ideological very very smart" viewpoint, NPR. There's noone out there really pushing Universal Health Care to these people, they're not hearing about it, how easy it is in so many countries, how much better their lives would be with it, they're just hearing all this propaganda. It's a damn shame. They need a material-based politics but all they have is this frenzied culture war and it's killing them.

And some of them, I assume, did not believe what happened next.

Maybe robots are just naturally racist. They are good at math, after all.

Man that is super weird

Huge amounts of modern ******* apologetics of right wing racist rhetoric is essentially this fallacy. I remember it took a turn as the McWhorter Fallacy in 2006 when George Allen called an Indian guy filming him a "maccaca" and told him "Welcome to America" and tons of right-wing asshats assured everyone liberals were making a big deal out of nothing because Allen was just being polite and maccaca COULD BE just a random string of sounds Allen just made up on the spot.

Back in the days when ACists were everywhere on the forum, I liked it best when it was known as the Raised by Wolves Act or the Feral Child Fallacy. Because we have to assume only liberals know anything about racism and anyone accused of being racist may have in fact been raised by wolves and has no idea why any of their words have any meaning at all. Why, perhaps Ron Paul doesn't even REALIZE basketball has anything to do with young black guys? He's so old and into economics, he probably just said black people riot over basketball because he knows young men of all ages really like roundball sports, he could have meant anything, stop calling him racist.

Watch for it. It's everywhere, even when race isn't even relevant. Like when Trump fired Comey and his defenders tried to argue Trump might not even know what obstruction of justice is, so he can hardly be guilty of it. He's just an impulsive dude with no filter, but he does no wrong.

The fallacy is the same in all cases: the apologists demand you assume everyone you call a racist or trying to break the law is actually a bumbling idiot, raised by wolves in the forest and so knows nothing of history or context, who is pure at heart and just does inadvertently racist/criminal things by pure happenstance. No one but liberals really consider the context of what they do, it's really liberals fault for assuming too much, such genuinely salt of the earth people like Sarah Palin meekly just make allusions to Trump's BOMBSHELL use of 14 words with no real clue as what 14 words even are or how many words Trump used or what racism is, they're too nice and colorblind to focus on that.

The 14 words thing is a coincidence guys. We are sounding more and more like /theDonald lately.

In fairness, it's admittedly hard to argue with because so many right wing heros are brazen idiots, it's plausible enough they just do stuff without giving it much thought. I'm not suggesting the defense doesn't have a bit of cleverness to it. The fallacy works by assuming that you'd prefer to bargain you're smart and most people aren't aggressively racist, and people like Palin are simply well-meaning morons ensnared by your deep cultural knowledge. The Raised by Wolves fallacy creates a good bit of dissonance by ultimately flattering the audience and it's easy to understand why it's a popular tool in the bull**** artist repertoire.

Some good posts above regarding culture, economics, and "Western values." I don't buy the Marxist line of analysis in toto, but I do see capitalism as a potent historical force or tendency (often for good). However, it has been tamed in some ways, sometimes more forcefully than others, and has rarely been as potent or as naked as it was in the 1850s, when civil society (including the aristocracy) was somewhat caught off guard by rapid developments (relatively speaking). It took a while for civil society to assert itself against the excesses of capitalism with a force and manner that Marx did not foresee. In fact, failure to foresee the push back of democratic institutions and civil society is arguably Marx's greatest lapse (so just set up shop where such protections don't exist, like in a single party worker's paradise where the free exchange of information is illegal). While there's much to be said for Dvaut's analysis, sometimes I think we're more or less in control of the tiger we're riding, and sometimes it's the other way around. However, the end result is certainly a bias toward the tiger's preferred direction of travel.

Though, in a way that was brought up above, things will start to get a kinda weird when automation and singularity/mature AI render the output of human labor less and less relevant in comparison with other outputs. I'd like to be around for it, so we should really focus (as Obama tried to) on potential existential threats like nuclear proliferation. I mean "safeguards" are great, but the likelihood of no mistakes does not inspire great confidence when the consequences of mistakes are massive.

We can give Palin or whoever runs her Twitter account a pass since the linked headline fills itself in or whatever, but you're straight up delusional if you think it's a coincidence that an alt-right blog referred to "14 words" when referring to Trump's speech about defending the West.

There's no ****ing way they just accidentally managed to reference "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children" when talking about a Trump speech along the same lines.

ETA: Young Conservatives is now claiming the 14 words they were referencing from Trump's speech were these:
“Let us all fight like the Poles. For family, freedom, for country, for God.”

Stunning.

lmao

I will fite u 4 GOD

I'm not speaking about some lunatics all-right blog. I'm just saying there is zero chance Palin is knowingly referencing the 14 words.