Thread by @JuliusGoat

This framing is a hot steaming turd all the way to the center. Ironically, it's the center to which this article hopes to appeal.

Time to put on the gloves...

First, let's name what this cultural moment actually is.

The country is being run by abusive people who have gotten so brazen about it that it can only be missed by people who actively choose to miss it.

And the rest of us are done catering to abusive people ever again.

We're not going to cater to racists anymore to get power, we're just going to take it from them.

If we fail the first time, we'll try a second time. And a third.

And if conservatives want to correlate conservative to racist then that goes for them, too.

We're done. All done.

Wow, starting off with pure excrement, @NYTNational. Solid waste.

If you aren't 'turned off' by someone making positive reference to lynching, but you ARE 'turned off' by somebody pushing back against it, then you are ... racist.

Racist. It's a word, @NYTNational. Learn it.

There was a choice, and it belonged to Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith.

It was a choice to appeal to racists, or to take a milder route, to signal to black and non-racist voters that she gave even one thought to them or their concerns or needs.

She chose the latter.

There was another choice, and it belonged to @NYTNational.

That was a choice to frame this as the challenger's unwise choice to inflame racists rather than sully his message by appeal to them, rather than a racist Senator's choice to appeal to those racists through racism.

But for Espy, there really isn't a choice.

We're not catering to racists anymore.

We aren't going to appease them or flatter their sensibilities.

We're in danger of alienating them?

We HOPE to alienate them.

A search for "suppression" returns nothing. A search for "gerrymandering" returns nothing.

Writing this paragraph without those words is a choice.

Pretending that these are two different things is a choice.

Noting that Southern voters don't want to be embarrassed by voting for racists, without noting that they absolutely should be embarrassed because they keep voting for racists is a choice.

Looking at a reality in which the GOP candidate's bleeding corporate donors who don't want to be associated with the ass-backward racist hateful nonsense she represents, and making the story "Dems should be frightened by their unwillingness to compete for that demo," is a choice.

The is the bar they are setting for Republicans in a story about the woes of the Democratic party. Just damn.

When are you going to take the training wheels off for the GOP, @NYTNational? You can't run alongside them with your hand on the bike seat forever.

This is just a damning indictment of a voting base animated by bigotry, and a political party that is irretrievably addicted to them.

We will not be catering to them. Ever again.

We're not changing for them. They can change for themselves. Or not. We don't give a shit what they do. We've got work to do.

We'll be working hard to building a fair and just country, one that recognizes everybody's basic human dignity. One where making favorable jokes about our past genocides would obviously be immediately disqualifying.

They'll hate it, and so what?

We don't care.

Credit where due: This close is strong, but it's monumentally ironic given the framing that the author and editors chose for the rest of it.

Build a flagpole outside your building, @NYTNational. Build a flagpole.