Clovis is 100% correct though, like here are a bunch of other headlines used by youngcons:

Liberals are saying these 6 words are the new N-words
Here are the 8 words the man who shot at George Zimmerman said seconds after the incident
Trump Nat’l Security Adviser Ends WH Briefing With 7 DEVASTATING Words Aimed Directly At Iran

They've also done the thing before where the headline on site doesn't contain this "x words" formulation, but it's in the metadata. For instance, this article is headlined "Trump’s Dying Brother Told Him, “Don’t You Dare Ever Drink”" but buried in the metadata is this:

So this is a clickbait formulation commonly used by youngcons. While it's not beyond the bounds of reason that this time they deliberately used the number 14, it seems likelier to me that this time 14 was what happened to come up.

What is certain is that linking Palin to the whole thing is ludicrous, because:

- The person choosing to share the article would not have known until they hit the share button that the "14 words" thing would be the title.
- Palin did not post the tweet herself (any tweets personally posted are signed "SP").

She may still not even know the tweet is there, and she's obviously not going to take it down now, because this has become another circus act where they get to whine about the "liberal media" attacking youngcons for no reason. Taking the tweet down would look like admitting that there was malice intended in the post in the first place.

Obviously I'm not a fan of whatever youngcons is (and it basically looks to be a derposphere version of Buzzfeed or Upworthy or something) or of Palin, but it's supposed to matter to the left what is true. We're not supposed to obsess over pizzagate-esque coded messages that our cartoon villain opponents are nefariously trying to slip into articles for... well, no doubt some complex evil plan. Get a ****ing grip.

The worst thing is, as someone else pointed out, that Trump's speech is already openly fascist! He's literally calling for the "will" to "preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it", "at any cost", for ****'s sake. And instead people are enthusiastically engaging in conspiracy theories that don't survive a close encounter with Hanlon's Razor.

Is there one American here who thinks the author of "14 words" in the young cons thing wasn't referencing white supremacy?

We don't deserve you.

It was a solid dig, lol @ challenging it.

No, it's not.

This. Wtf dude?

Et tu simplicitus? Bannon/Miller being more racist than Palin doesn't mean, or prove, anything. Was that ever even an argument? You went to bat for another moron recently, step your reads up.

And this.

So lord knows why he chooses to tarnish his good name over people like Palin something like twice a week.

And the coup de grâce.

and those first two things you cite equal 14 words!!! Illuminati confirmed!

The author is a moron named Warner Todd Huston. I'd be surprised if he wasn't at least somewhat racist, but he is not anti-Jewish. He's written many articles loudly supporting Israel and excoriating Obama for plotting against them. The Fourteen Words were written by someone who is so anti-Semitic that he is literally in jail for helping murder a Jew.

But I guess maybe as an Australian, I see the 14 words thing differently. Speaking of which, here's an article by Nazi website Buzzfeed on 14 Words That Australians See Differently To The Rest Of The World. And 14 Words That Have A Completely Different Meaning To Friends Fans. And 14 Words That Meant Something Completely Different In The '00s.

Like I said, Hanlon's Razor. It *could* have been intentional, but there's also no reason at all to suppose that it wasn't simple incompetence.

German soldiers who were OK with concentration camps were terrible people. Same with ISIS soldiers who are OK with their atrocities. Same with those who were OK with slavery in the mid 1800s or OK with men, women and colored restrooms in the 1950s (earlier dates might be excusable). Same also with those cigarette company executives who testified before congress as well as their immediate underlings, even if they were Democrats. They are all worse than any Senator.

It's really about whether God could microwave a burrito so hot even He Himself couldn't eat it.

MAKE THE EXCISION DOCTOR

I wonder what this post means for AG Jefferson Sessions. He was Senator when he said he was OK with the KKK organization...until he found out some of their members smoked pot.

Saying Donald Trump is incapable of studying or learning is not completely accurate. He is totally incapable, on almost all topics. However, there are a handful of things Trump IS good at and CAN learn. Aside from stuff like marketing and public speaking, he definitely understands the results gotten by the authoritarian leaders he idolizes. Putin is at the top of the list of richest, most powerful scumbags he emulates.

Trump's Putin envy, financial dealings, and likely money laundering span over decades and predate Trump's relationship with guys like Bannon and even Manafort. Roger Stone is closest to sharing the Trump/Putin philosophy. Trump did get a lot from bouncing scumbag strategies off of him for a very long time period.

Watch the video I was referring to in my post. What Trump has been doing to our country doesn't require him to know specifics about dates or titles of Putin's career. The MSNBC piece illustrates simple concepts that Trump does understand well. His inability to learn things like governing are from a genuine lack of interest and laziness. This is clearly shown by his ability TO learn when bullet points or the word "Trump" are added to keep him interested in things like briefing materials.

Trump is obsessed with Putin. It's the mirror opposite of his obsession with Obama. The things Trump says when he's speaking off-script and from the "heart" that come naturally to him are consistent with those decades longing for money, power and (in)fame. It's not like he changed anytime recently, except for gaining enormous power, resources and secret intelligence in January. Now his mission has greedily shifted to the acquisition of MORE (unlimited?) power and MORE money, which he will 100% obtain within a year or two if the treasonous and complicit GOP continues to leave him unchecked.

It's the most dangerous game we've seen our government play in a LONG TIME, if ever.

I lol'd for a solid 20 seconds at 'galaxy brain'.

Also, a true thing: If you notice Fly caught a temp-b then rest assured a thread somewhere got good.

Poor old Fly. I find him interesting and engaging, but then I haven't incurred his wrath yet.

He's a great poster, but definitely underappreciated by simpletons like me because of the tl;dr nature of his posts. He gets DVaut syndrome at times.

My problem, not theirs though. I need 140 character posts, preferably bullet pointed. Frequently using the word "House" helps tremendously too. Thx.

The whole thing is one big mashup now. It's the kinism and the nativism and the christian-identism and the post-post-neo-small-N-nazism all thrown in the deplorable pot.

Also, an editor might have originally titled the article.

I have. The people who can't handle the Flyperbole and melt down and become embittered and obsessed with him are all giant pussies with a side of sore loser.

I think of him as a really talented Battleship player. Like, he takes a read on someone and infers and extrapolates. And he's excellent at it, though not perfect. Presumably he's happy with his strike rate. And it's not as though he's Liberal Jesus or something; the conversations here don't consist of Fly Versus Everyone Who Isn't Fly. Let him do him, and other people can engage the coal-miner fetishists on other issues, for whatever that ends up being worth.

(i) Palin is almost unquestionably a racist of some stripe
(ii) I don't care what exact stripe and neither should you
(iii) Focus on Trump and his speech, forget about Palin's ****ing twitter feed
(iv) ChrisV is right

Rehashing as usual, but is it true that if Trump somehow succeeds at squashing just 2 things, Mueller's investigation and fair elections, it's game over for America with no turning back?

I'm much more worried today than I was yesterday.

He didn't say there were no terrible people in those organizations, he said not all of them were terrible.

You say this like Fly comes down on people randomly without reason. Don't make racist posts or defend other racist stuff and you'll be fine, basically.

Carter Page on Smerconish. He is both creepy and amazingly stupid.

Every forum should have a fly. It adds to the fun that some of the flybies hate to be teased even in a friendly way because they take themselves so seriously. Very good effort by DS recently

'Extrapolates' is a top euphemism. I may use it in future instead of 'making things up'.

14 words is sort strange, though, since like -- that's kind of a lot of words, sort of highly specific (as opposed to five, seven, eight) -- and there's not really a quip or sentence in Trump's speech that is 14 words.

As was always *my* point here (I don't know about everyone else's): there is basically ALWAYS some minimally plausible innocuous explanation for casual and coded racism. Hence the effectiveness of the Raised by Wolves Defense. Why we leap behind the Veil of Ignorance to defend it is highly strange. Take it in a more Bayesian fashion:

- Trump's speech was pretty fascist, clearly written by Miller and itself containing a bunch of white supremacist-y buzzwords and wink/nods
- Sarah Palin is a right-wing populist trying for years now to ingratiate herself to that crowd and build herself a little cottage media industry and notoriety as a defender of the angry white
- the YoungCons are basically a poor man's Breitbart, and their business model is providing right-wing racist claptrap in exchange for clicks

I mean, how *complex* is this, REALLY? Isn't it simply:

- dumb angry whites enjoy racist drivel and
- clickbaiters and media celebrities who share them want their clicks and eyeballs

That's the plan, full stop. That's the entire episode and all you need to know about the potential motivations and incentives of those involved.

That seems markedly different from assuming Hillary Clinton is covering up a child-raping crime syndicate in a pizza store.

Like your post is bad, man. And I like your posts. But this is some pretty ridiculous false equivalencies.

In sum:
- the Raised By Wolves/Feral Child Fallacy is always meant to disquiet conclusions about the truth in cases where *the truth* depends on someone's motivations which can be hard to suss out in isolation and where "well, they're just dumb and clueless?" could always serve to explain any behavior. Taken alone, it can always be true. That's why we let all this information we know about Trump's speech, the YoungCons, Palin, their business model, their audience, their history, etc. enter into the calculation before we make our conclusion. That's *sound* reasoning.
- the critics of Palin need no grand conspiracy other than Palin, clickbaiters, the right-wing ecosystem, etc. sell racism for fun and profit. That also squares and comports with what we know.

Yet again the grand liberal tradition and our search for truth allows us to believe a theory which takes all available information and reconciles with other things we know are true: Sarah Palin sells racist grievances and white people redemption stories to fellow traveler right-wingers and headlining your product with notable racist taglines is part of the business to attraction attention.

The one point in ChrisV's post that would give me pause: Obviously a good question -- should the left "obsess" over this as opposed to Trump, Palin, and the right wing's numerous other transgressions and regressive behaviors?

Well, got me there.