When the left devours their own - Bye Alyssa

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: 3n19m470
a reply to: Boadicea

Lol, she safely recognizes the evil of NOI, therefore she "went rogue".

Well... you're close... kinda sorta. There's actually much more to it. She was calling out the anti-semitism of Farrakhan specifically, as opposed to the entire Nation of Islam, and simultaneously calling out the associations and support of the Women's March organizers for Farrakhan. She not only called them out for it, she refused to endorse, participate or support in any way the Women's March as a result... thus, no doubt, influencing overall participation and social/political/media impact. Especially because ideologically speaking, and purportedly representing issues and causes near and dear to her heart, Milano should have been a strong ally.

So, yes, she went rogue. She deviated from their narrative.

That's just...perfect. That perfectly explains the thought processes going on here. Thank you.

You're welcome. But I really don't expect you to get it. I wrote that for the benefit of others who are actually interested in reading and hearing new thoughts and information and perspectives.

I wouldn't try to disabuse YOU of your notions

You mean like those that declare someone as "rogue" that "are interested in reading and hearing new thoughts and information and perspectives" and not afraid to stand up for those differing thoughts by distancing themselves from those in which they disagree?

How enlightened and progressive a perspective (in a leftist warped sense).

a reply to: Krakatoa

Oh dear... did you just accuse me of being a leftist? Not cool. Not cool at all.

But to the point... um... there was no "disagreement" expressed, I was mocked based on the poster's own mischaracterization of Milano's actions. I expanded and corrected the poster.

And no, I don't believe the poster wanted to hear new thoughts and perspectives, because then the poster would have asked me to do exactly that. You know... questions... that invite and encourage and welcome those new thoughts and perspectives. But instead it was a false statement, as well as judgment -- exactly the opposite of someone interested in considering new thoughts and ideas. And, of course, there would have been no need nor inclination for the mocking tone.

...and not afraid to stand up for those differing thoughts by distancing themselves from those in which they disagree?

Well of course they're allowed their echo chamber!!! I said I wouldn't try to disabuse them of their notions...

a reply to: Boadicea

Farrakhan is openly evil. So it's only normal and expected to question such ties. I'm still confused what the problem is here. I'm open to other ideas, but, saying that white and Jewish people are evil and blacks are superior to all others isnt really something I've seen proof of. Do you have some evidence I haven't seen to support Farrakhans views?

originally posted by: 3n19m470
a reply to: Boadicea

Farrakhan is openly evil.

Yup.

So it's only normal and expected to question such ties.

One would think... Alyssa Milano apparently thought so... and took a stand when the women organizing the Women's March refused to do exactly that.

I'm still confused what the problem is here.

Me too.

...saying that white and Jewish people are evil and blacks are superior to all others isnt really something I've seen proof of. Do you have some evidence I haven't seen to support Farrakhans views?

Of course not... and I never asserted such. I simply pointed out that Milano was taking a stand against the women organizing the Women's March because they refused to denounce Farrakhan's anti-semitism.

How did this get twisted? I have no idea why you are even asking me this.

originally posted by: Boadicea
...
Of course not... and I never asserted such. I simply pointed out that Milano was taking a stand against the women organizing the Women's March because they refused to denounce Farrakhan's anti-semitism.

How did this get twisted? I have no idea why you are even asking me this.

For me, it was when you said she went "rogue". My interpretation was that you saw her not complying to their view of the world as being a rogue action, and something to be prevented. That sentence implied you agreed with them and therefore you thought she was going rogue. Now, I could have misunderstood your position, and you really meant to say that they think she went rogue.

That would explain your reactions for the posts IMO.