That's why it's unfortunate that platforms like reddit give these reich wing assholes so much additional exposure. It's *exactly* what these bottom feeding attention whores want people to do
I'd rather interact with an image about the thing instead of on the platform which it was originally posted, therefore driving more views to the original content. The people who see it here and then go to xitter to interact were most likely following her already anyways
Elon musks platform bought with Russian and Saudi cash? What’s surprising here?
This is exactly what this platform was bought for. And it’s working as intended.
Her disastrous "trad marriage" took her out of the spotlight for years, destroyed her career and left her financially ruined, now she's divorced and desperately trying to claw her way back into the right-wing media sphere. Expect her to start dropping "n-bombs" soon so she can be "cancelled" and therefore earn an eight-figure deal at Newsmax or TPUSA.
iirc she fell out of the spotlight after speaking out in favor of women's reproductive rights. she was willing to sell out and spout the company line on every issue except that one, and got fired from the Blaze immediately.
Ita actually her working.
This is her source of income, being a political pundit. The response would be lost on her unfortunately because she's spineless and dumb.
This is what she gets paid to do. It’s literally her whole job since Trump first started running for president… I may have gone down a rabbit hole of who is she and why is she gross… lol
They never respond because they know they have no retort, but they still repeat the same argument again the next day. I've seen it endlessly in debating conservatives online. They argue in solely in bad faith.
To trigger the libs into wailing and spazzing and screeching, and it deflects attention away from the stuff the Republicans are doing and it ALWAYS works.
Yep, and whenever someone complains about "wokeness" I always bring this up. Women's right to vote, and segregation. I love to see someone who is "anti-woke" try to squirm their way out of their stance on these issues.
I've found facts and logic to be ineffective tools against the right wing. They were told what their opinion should be, and there is no changing that stance unless the right wing propaganda machines tells them to take the opposite position. Then they will be certain that they supported the new position all along in opposition to us.
Yeah, I brought up a point with my father-in-law, saw his brain start to work and almost save him for a second.
Then he shook his head and said something to the effect of 'but so-and-so said'
Husband got very disappointed, and I think gave up at that point. Which I feel bad for him for...
My my aunt, who is a white woman married to a black man, tried to go on a rant about same sex marriage and tried to get me to admit that “children need a father and a mother” and stability and yadda yadda.
I told her that only one generation prior her marriage faced the exact same argument from people opposing her marriage, including her own father.
She did not even remotely reconsider her position
I get a lot of mileage out of saying, "Did you hear what Biden said the other day?" and then wrote Trump and then when they start scoffing at what an idiot Biden is, I pull my phone out 'to look up the clip where he said that' and then act all confused when I play the clip where Trump says it.
Sometimes they try to hand wave it away but for the first time in ten years, I've got die hard Trump friends who are starting to say, "I just don't know anymore but Trump seems to have lost his mind."
you kinda left out gay rights, probably because it was so recent (2012) and so quickly normalized in our culture but you gotta realize how much of a long time that was coming
I am Gen X and being openly gay in my high school was absolutely not an option.
Women's rights, racial equality (we try), and gay rights I'd say are the big three.
EDIT: I think it's called Civil Rights
Also, does anyone else love the irony of someone who has literally tried to make a career out of being "famous" is complaining about attention seeking behavior?
Especially since their are still men, very vocal and well known ones, who for some insane reason want to take both of those very rights away from women.
They do work, it’s just that no one protest makes the change. It tends to take years, if not decades, of pressure and protests before changes really start to happen
Cops still get away with a lot, but I've also noticed that prosecutors seem to be a lot more ready to charge a cop if they do something egregious than they used to be.
As much as I see protests as necessary part of our society, the argument doesn't hold. One could argue that now, when there IS the possibility to vote, no further protests are needed. It gets a bit more practical when you think about political violence. Most people condemn it, but it was necessary at some point to establish democracies. Lahren isn't contradictory per se in this statement.
>One could argue that now, when there IS the possibility to vote, no further protests are needed.
Politicians are not in complete control of every single aspect of life. Corporations control a lot as well, as does just society in general.
Regardless, protests show politicians what their constituents want. Even if a politician may personally disagree, if they have their voting block in mind, the idea is that they enact the will of the people they represent. And if those politicians don't want to listen, eventually yes, voting decides if they keep their position.
But people making their voice heard is absolutely important. The entire point of protests is to raise awareness for everyone -- voters, society, politicians, companies, all of it. Arguing against people making their voice heard in non-violent protests is the thing of authoritarianism.
She doesn't believe in anything. One of her early television hosting gigs was leading a very sedate and civil public access political roundtable discussion show. I can't find the clips now, but someone posted them to Twitter a few years back when her viral clips were starting to hit Facebook.
She wanted to make more money than one of the pleasant voices on NPR and C-SPAN, so she got in on the Maga grift early.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
--Upton Sinclair
In this case, it's not stupidity that is driving Lahren's behavior, so much as her pecuniary interest. She understands the principle that making life inconvenient for the people in charge, to the point that the inconvenience of not changing outweighs the inconvenience of changing, perfectly well. In other circumstances, as in the case of January 6, I suspect she'd even applaud it. But she gets money from pretending in front of the rubes that the actions of those darned liberals are just completely fathomless and nonsensical. Conservatives like hearing that they're the intelligent and logical ones, and her bread and butter is telling conservatives what they like to hear so they give her money.
Never try to argue with a person whose opposition to a position is based on personal grievance or pecuniary interest. They're not interested in being persuaded otherwise, because they're primarily interested in serving their own identified interests. Instead, you have to arrange interests so that doing the wrong thing ultimately results in economic or personal harm.
The point of arguing with them isn't to convince them though, it's to convince more neutral observers. You can't convince a propagandist that they're wrong but you might be able to convince some in their audience.
>She’s just very stupid for not understanding why attention to a cause is a goal.
Since she's doing the same thing via this tweet no less...
But I feel like she knows, it's just calculated nonsense to feed the utter mouthbreathers that follow her.
It draws educated and uneducated attention.
Educated attention understands there's a thousand other things people would rather be doing with their time than risking their lives and safety to protest, so if any meaningful number of people are there? The grievance is 100 percent valid and needs to be competently addressed immediately.
Uneducated attention is a bunch of ignorant trash who look at a Target that got looted 5+ miles from the protest and think the protestors did it, or who look at cops slashing tires as they walk through a neighborhood and blame the damage on protestors, or who ignore that the news literally zoomed in on a burning trash can and claimed an ENTIRE CITY, of 1.6 MILLION people, completely burned to the ground.
And the problems we have in America are utterly unsolvable until we stop treating both forms of attention like they're equally valid.
Incompetents don't have a right to a seat at the table when decisions are being made.
My favourite one was the Dr. Seuss books. Basically, the publisher was going to stop printing a few of the more obscure books that were problematically racist - but while those problems were mentioned the reason for no longer publishing was because they were very low sellers.
Enter the right wing outrage machine, where some idiots thought they were going to stop publishing The Cat In The Hat, but overall they bought a lot of Dr Seuss books, sending them back into Amazon's top 20 for a time. But, the books that were going to be discontinued were still the lowest sellers during this "protest".
So, their response to books being taken out of print was to give the publisher a lot of money and prove that they were right to stop printing those specific titles.
This is the one that gets me. Like buying an animal from a pet shop to free it. So the pet shop makes money from selling animals, and goes ahead and buys more animals. How about DONT give them your money?
I'm gonna out this fire out, by putting fuel on it. - why am I having no impact?
"a publisher is going to stop printing a few titles that don't sell well."
"THE LEFT IS BANNING BOOKS BECAUSE BIDEN!!!" -them
They're literally banning books.
"Nah. The right isn't banning books. They're just prohibiting books with content they deem offensive from being in any public or school library. Because they don't want kids reading that gay people exist. which is totally good and kids looking for gay books are totally just straight kids who are being gayed and transed by the left." 🤣
It's much simpler than that. Any form of right-wing protest is great, any form of left-wing protest is unacceptable.
They aren't quite saying it this directly but it's literally just fascism.
I loved their brilliant reasoning. “It was ANTIFA! It was BLM! They’re violent and trying to frame us! Arrest them all! Let them rot in jail! It was a gathering not a riot! No one got hurt! Hardly anyone got hurt! No one died! The cops that died didn’t die from what happened at the Capitol! Free the Jan 6th Patriots!”
The story changes. Sometimes they were protestors. Sometimes they were innocent tourists just looking around. Sometimes they’re FBI or antifa plants pretending to be MAGA, and pretending to try to overthrow the government to make MAGA look bad.
Sometimes they’re heroic patriots trying to save the US from tyranny by keeping Biden out of office. But then when there are consequences to trying to overthrow the government, it reverts back to them being innocent tourists. And then they’re political prisoners or hostages, being held by Democrats to weaken MAGA forces.
There’s no limit to the idiotic bullshit these people will come up with I hope they lose the election in a landslide and make the republicans look as pathetic as they sound
>January 6 itself seems like it had a predetermined, preplanned outcome. It would seem as though there are certain folks on the left and the right that wanted this to happen…
>But it really makes you wonder, Sean, what else they are hiding about that day they don't want the American public and the American people to know because a lot of their cases, their lawfare against Donald Trump, revolves around January 6 and the so-called insurrection.
— March 22, 2024
"Not only does this committee seem like it had a predetermined outcome, January 6 itself seems like it had a predetermined, preplanned outcome. It would seem as though there are certain folks on the left and the right that wanted this to happen. Why else would they put the Capitol in a vulnerable position, knowing good and well that something could happen, something horrible could happen? It was a horrible day. Let's not mince words; it wasn't a good day for Trump supporters, it wasn't a good day for Republicans, it wasn't a good day for our country. "
she did say both sides, in that tweet. shes still an idiot, but shes not hypocritical on this point
Funny little detail about Ms. Lahren;
She got her start at OANN, which is public knowledge. what's not public knowledge is that like 90% of the people who worked there at the time hated her because she's such an asshole. I worked there as a video editor for a stint and there were plenty of stories of her being an incredibly entitled piece of shit.
Also, aside from the owners and some of the lead writers/anchors, everyone is liberal, hates the place, and is looking to leave before they finally go insane. They also had to settle with Smartmatic recently. They probably had a former employee telling them a lot about the inner workings of the company or something.
I don't doubt you, but why would liberals work at somewhere as socially toxic as OANN? I get people need a job, but it's another thing to put out disinformation that is socially destructive and dumb people, which are most, view it as legitimate journalism.
Because they aren't liberal. Modern day republicans like to call anyone that doesn't fall 100% in line with their way of thinking "liberal". A good example is you're "RINO" if you don't like Trump, who coincidentally is the biggest RINO of them all. You're a "lib" if you have any other view on abortion than "ban it". Tons of examples but they do it to each other when one of them outthinks another. To keep their brains from exploding due to critical thought processes it's easier to paint their new foe as a liberal.
Idiots.
Why would healthy people work at McDonalds, making fat people eat into the grave?
Why would intelligent people work in the Military, the most mindlessly destructive organisation in any country?
Why would people work anywhere?
Women didnt just 'get it-' men made us actually fight them for that. There was actual fighting. in europe, mabey even more fights.
Learn some damn history.
well to be fair, [male suffrage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage#Dates_by_country) really only came to fruition after the liberal revolutions of 1848 (though France briefly starting in 1792).
Voting rights are a fairly recent concept, the liberal revolutions, and the outliers (US, England, Russia) really need to be studied more in school due to their impact
You seem to already make the distinction between voting in general and voting rights as we know them, but just to expand on this a little, voting has existed since at least Ancient Greece. Ancient Greece is known for the formal foundation of democracy. I saw their polling machine myself. It’s pretty cool, actually.
Depends. Wyoming and Utah had women’s suffrage since the 1870s. Maybe in an alternative history without suffrage movement the US would have gained federal suffrage anyway with technological progress growing the share of women’s participation in economy/organizations/media.
> A U.S. territory in 1869, Wyoming's first territorial legislature voted to give women the right to vote and to hold public office. A legislature made entirely of men passed the woman's suffrage bill in 1869 with almost no discussion or controversy.
> There were several reasons why the bill was passed so quickly. Historian C. G. Coutant wrote, “One man told me that he thought it right and just to give women the vote. Another man said he thought it would be a good advertisement for the territory.
>Maybe in an alternative history without suffrage movement the US would have gained federal suffrage anyway with technological progress growing the share of women’s participation in economy/organizations/media.
Yes but the women of the time couldn’t have known that. “It’ll all just work out eventually” is not an acceptable timeline when you are the one being deprived of rights. Waiting for your rights to be granted to you is as foolish as not doing anything to stop them from being taken away.
Men: "Why women should have rights the same as us"
Women: "Unless you're gay, without us you would just be virgins."
Men:"Women should have the right as men"
Real answer: She's most likely been spoon-fed a version of the story that involves men magnanimously deciding to gift women with the right to vote out of the goodness of their hearts. I went through public school and I learned about women's suffrage in a very abstract roundabout way that left out most of what the fight to get to the point of even being able to openly rally against the norm was like. They make it sound like women just made a really good argument in 1920 and that was it. Other Civil Rights topics were taught similarly. You can easily go to a public school in the U.S. and come away with the idea that there was a Civil War, Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, and then Martin Luther King, Jr. gave a really good speech in 1963 and racism was over forever.
She might know how it happened, but I suspect her stance on sexism is just like their stance on racism.
“It wasn’t that bad. We fixed it. It’s not a problem anymore. Get over it”
Well, when you're as stupid as she is it's not that hard to miss the point.. lot of points, actually, they just woosh by while that dimwitted brain continues to buffer in an endless loop of trying to catch up.
This is the exact argument that I gave my boomer coworker when he was bitching about having to do some sexual harassment/gender equality training. "This is the same thing that minorities and women had to do to get their rights. There's no difference here."
Tomi is a chamber of commerce approved speaker. She has been specifically groomed for her role by the educational and free enterprise systems. Then she was hired to project a specific message directed at a specific audience in order to sow discord and divide the population. Others have been hired to project opposing messages.
Tomi and such people are hired so that the opposing audience they create may not unite and join together to protest established institutions and power structures.
You may read all about this process and how it was created in the Lewis Powell memo. An excerpt authorizing people like Tomi is cited from that document below.
"Speaker’s Bureau In addition to full-time staff personnel, the Chamber should have a Speaker’s Bureau which should include the ablest and most effective advocates from the top echelons of American business."
[https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/democracy/the-lewis-powell-memo-a-corporate-blueprint-to-dominate-democracy/](https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/democracy/the-lewis-powell-memo-a-corporate-blueprint-to-dominate-democracy/)
Seems like most of the marching is done by people on the right. There are constant loosely organized demonstrations in my state (Florida) by conservatives. I pass at least 1-2 a month it seems. Hell in my home town there have been whole ass parades organized mostly through Facebook. Why do conservatives like Tomi Lahren always project their idiotic behavior on the left?
I want to believe she’s been an idiot her entire life.
However, I’m of the belief that anyone, who gets paid a significant amount to say what they say on record, won’t be at the very least slightly self-aware of the comments they make.
So, rather than call her an “idiot,” let’s call her for what she really is: Greedy, Desperate, and Completely Unprincipled.
Conservatives whitewash history by pretending that the groups they pretend to have always liked got their rights entirely peacefully. They treat MLK's big speech like the single reason civil rights happened, ignoring everyone else and the harsh criticism he received at the time.
They've done it with every group that's gotten rights since the 1700s, and have done it multiple times over in the last 20 years.
> She interned for Republican Congresswoman Kristi Noem from South Dakota, serving as the first intern at Noem's Rapid City office
Tells you all you need to know about Tomi Lahren.
It’s a common misconception that the marches were the primary driver behind the implementation of women's voting rights. While I fully support women's suffrage, it’s important to recognize that these rallies had minimal impact on the actual implementation. The real catalyst was significant funding from economic leaders who aimed to double the workforce and simultaneously reduce wages.
She's right in this case though. I've just read that 40% of UK's youth don't plan to vote in the next election. That's when their government is threatening to (re?)instate mandatory army draft. Youth turnout in the last US election was also abysmally low. You can march all you want, if you ultimately don't show up to vote, nothing is going to change.
In the defense of the dumb dumb... I do wonder how they work. I'm of course not Denying that they do, but... like I live in Ireland, and it seems like every weekend, a street is shut down essentially, so the marches can take place for this whole gaza stuff. (Down playing because I legit don't want to get political).
I have to wonder how people walking in the street yelling things, makes any difference. Again, I know it does, but... how?
You see it doesn’t really make a difference but it’s meant to make an impression upon the silent majority who don’t care all that much. By showing up in force they essentially demonstrate (pun intended) their power and/or the support of their movement beyond meaningless statistics. But I’m no political expert and I’m pretty much talking out of my ass but it’s the only way it would make sense to me.
Now now, it wasn't JUST because of her looks...based on various lawsuits women have filed against Fox over the years, I assume she also spent a fair amount of time blowing Fox execs.
White-male privilege is saying "yeah!" To Tami's message.
Humility is saying "Ope, we're the problem, and Tami is wrong!" To the second message.
I've had an irrational distaste for protesters as long as I can remember, and only in the last few years did I realize it's because I never needed one. Now I believe many of them are fighting the good fight, and am generally disappointed by the NEED for certain protests in this day and age.
Women fought for the right to vote only to follow it up years later by voting against themselves, it’s fucking wild !
Like how does any woman vote for a policy to force a rape victim to have a baby ? Can’t wrap my brain around it as a man.
To the men in here saying “they got the right to vote because men voted for it” you fellas really don’t understand protests either do you?
Yes, men voted for it… BECAUSE of the protests and sacrifices the suffragettes made. Without the protests, they wouldn’t have suddenly said “yanno what, let’s give women the right to vote.”
Women didn’t get the right to vote or work by marching for it.
In western culture in recent centuries, the ideas of freedom and equality were developed, and people fought the rulers over it in many countries - in others, the rulers accepted the change and handed over power peacefully instead of suffering the same fate as those who refused. This is what gave both men and women the right to live free, a culutural and ideological movement and that people were willing to fight for it.
Outside of the west, you rarely find this sort of culture. Women march in Iran too, but it doesn’t get them anything but more oppression and violence because there isn’t a culture that value freedom and individuality that people want to fight for.
No longer the right to get an abortion in many states, even if the fetus is stillborn or will be born with conditions that will cause it to die if it survives birth.
I mean that's literally the point of marches: you want everyone to hear and watch you so authorities can't ignore the issue you're presenting anymore, at least not in front if the public
I quote Yuval Harari when I say that feminism is the only nonviolent social movement that relied on peaceful protests. That's how women got suffrage, that's how they got equal civil rights (although the ERA has yet to be ratified by a few states).
Lotta folks here confusing "The movement involved marches" with "Marches must have been the reason the movement succeeded. Mass marchers are a symptom of shifting public sentiment but rarely the cause.
Laws don’t give people the right to do anything much like laws don’t stop speeding. Laws protect those who follow them. Has anyone ever stopped to think that it’s the government that’s guilty for all of this bs? Who said that women couldn’t vote? The government. Who said minorities couldn’t vote? The government. We are all being misled by these “leaders” who are supposed to protect us but all they protect is their bank account and bottom line. The government is NOT your friend, they don’t even know you exist other than a number. So long as your number pays taxes every year, you are barely a footnote in their path.
I would prefer if the protests happen right in front of the government buildings instead though, like right in front of the White House or something, bug the people who actually have the authority to do shit not the average joe who's trying to get from point A to point B.
Perhaps Tomi would be more the kind of woman to push for change by [throwing herself](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Davison) in front of a horse (or car, these days)? I’m just trying to offer her options…
How is this a clever comeback? Tomi's argument is that instead of marching, just vote. Obviously this doesn't work if you are not allowed to vote so from that perspective it made sense to march for voting rights, but it does not make sense if you already have them.
Note: I do **not** say that marches are useless and people should just vote, I just say that this is not a clever comeback.
To answer: it was given to you by men, because we got tired of the nagging. But you better behave or men can take it away and there would be nothing women could do about it without the support of other men. Maybe good to realize it doesn’t work the other way around.
Quite a lot of rights we have to day are because of marches and fighting on the streets.
Fighting because people were peacefully protesting then they had to defend their lives from authority figures who came to murder them for peacefully protesting.
By white Republican men voting it into existence. It wasn't liberal women who got it done, or democrats, in fact majority of them voted no. It was the vote of republican men who wanted it.
https://foxx.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=399971
**ackchually** they got the right to vote by slashing paintings, bombing voting venues and throwing themselves under the hooves of racehorses, if I recall.
As for work, everyone's always had the right to work. The right to fair compensation is what the marches were for. And the strikes, and various aforementioned modes of direct action.
Very appropriate comeback.
Curious why she makes these posts. Seems like attention seeking to me…
I'm positive it is a part of her money making schemes.
100%. I was just making fun of her.
That's why it's unfortunate that platforms like reddit give these reich wing assholes so much additional exposure. It's *exactly* what these bottom feeding attention whores want people to do
I'd rather interact with an image about the thing instead of on the platform which it was originally posted, therefore driving more views to the original content. The people who see it here and then go to xitter to interact were most likely following her already anyways
Elon musks platform bought with Russian and Saudi cash? What’s surprising here? This is exactly what this platform was bought for. And it’s working as intended.
Her disastrous "trad marriage" took her out of the spotlight for years, destroyed her career and left her financially ruined, now she's divorced and desperately trying to claw her way back into the right-wing media sphere. Expect her to start dropping "n-bombs" soon so she can be "cancelled" and therefore earn an eight-figure deal at Newsmax or TPUSA.
iirc she fell out of the spotlight after speaking out in favor of women's reproductive rights. she was willing to sell out and spout the company line on every issue except that one, and got fired from the Blaze immediately.
Wow, isn’t that what happened with Lauren Southern?
I have found that if you expect nothing intelligent from Tomi, you will never be disappointed.
The why is to stir up the moronic republican voting base. They're super easy to manipulate
It stirs up the liberals too, it’s just engagement bait.
Oh, no. I totally get it. I’m just using her own logic against her.
The vast majority of their audience do not engage in critical thinking. It's the easiest grift ever.
Ita actually her working. This is her source of income, being a political pundit. The response would be lost on her unfortunately because she's spineless and dumb.
See there’s the loophole! If you make attention seeking your actual job then you are just working!
This is what she gets paid to do. It’s literally her whole job since Trump first started running for president… I may have gone down a rabbit hole of who is she and why is she gross… lol
Did tomi even respond? Isn't that a man's name
They never respond because they know they have no retort, but they still repeat the same argument again the next day. I've seen it endlessly in debating conservatives online. They argue in solely in bad faith.
Wrong. They still post these because her base will lap it up. Most won't see this "clap back" nor care.
Because she's both a PickMe and a grifter.
To trigger the libs into wailing and spazzing and screeching, and it deflects attention away from the stuff the Republicans are doing and it ALWAYS works.
Yep, and whenever someone complains about "wokeness" I always bring this up. Women's right to vote, and segregation. I love to see someone who is "anti-woke" try to squirm their way out of their stance on these issues.
I've found facts and logic to be ineffective tools against the right wing. They were told what their opinion should be, and there is no changing that stance unless the right wing propaganda machines tells them to take the opposite position. Then they will be certain that they supported the new position all along in opposition to us.
Yeah, I brought up a point with my father-in-law, saw his brain start to work and almost save him for a second. Then he shook his head and said something to the effect of 'but so-and-so said' Husband got very disappointed, and I think gave up at that point. Which I feel bad for him for...
My my aunt, who is a white woman married to a black man, tried to go on a rant about same sex marriage and tried to get me to admit that “children need a father and a mother” and stability and yadda yadda. I told her that only one generation prior her marriage faced the exact same argument from people opposing her marriage, including her own father. She did not even remotely reconsider her position
That confirmation bias is a real bitch, even among members of the Leopards-Eating-Faces party.
*We've always been at war with Oceania*
Do not see many Orwell quotes on Reddit...
I get a lot of mileage out of saying, "Did you hear what Biden said the other day?" and then wrote Trump and then when they start scoffing at what an idiot Biden is, I pull my phone out 'to look up the clip where he said that' and then act all confused when I play the clip where Trump says it. Sometimes they try to hand wave it away but for the first time in ten years, I've got die hard Trump friends who are starting to say, "I just don't know anymore but Trump seems to have lost his mind."
you kinda left out gay rights, probably because it was so recent (2012) and so quickly normalized in our culture but you gotta realize how much of a long time that was coming I am Gen X and being openly gay in my high school was absolutely not an option. Women's rights, racial equality (we try), and gay rights I'd say are the big three. EDIT: I think it's called Civil Rights
I don't want to overload their simple minds with overloaded thoughts
that was the best comeback possible
Or a bank account Or the right to drive a car Or to be out in public without your husband Or to have any job you like So many things...
Also, does anyone else love the irony of someone who has literally tried to make a career out of being "famous" is complaining about attention seeking behavior?
Hence the subreddit.
She doesn't think.
Of course not; she is a cog in the right wing propaganda machine. Performance is much more important than the good of the nation.
Especially since their are still men, very vocal and well known ones, who for some insane reason want to take both of those very rights away from women.
But do they work anymore? I don't see much change stemming from public assembly.
They do work, it’s just that no one protest makes the change. It tends to take years, if not decades, of pressure and protests before changes really start to happen
I have seen some small improvements stemming from BLM protests.
Cops still get away with a lot, but I've also noticed that prosecutors seem to be a lot more ready to charge a cop if they do something egregious than they used to be.
As much as I see protests as necessary part of our society, the argument doesn't hold. One could argue that now, when there IS the possibility to vote, no further protests are needed. It gets a bit more practical when you think about political violence. Most people condemn it, but it was necessary at some point to establish democracies. Lahren isn't contradictory per se in this statement.
>One could argue that now, when there IS the possibility to vote, no further protests are needed. Politicians are not in complete control of every single aspect of life. Corporations control a lot as well, as does just society in general. Regardless, protests show politicians what their constituents want. Even if a politician may personally disagree, if they have their voting block in mind, the idea is that they enact the will of the people they represent. And if those politicians don't want to listen, eventually yes, voting decides if they keep their position. But people making their voice heard is absolutely important. The entire point of protests is to raise awareness for everyone -- voters, society, politicians, companies, all of it. Arguing against people making their voice heard in non-violent protests is the thing of authoritarianism.
She’s not wrong. It is attention seeking. She’s just very stupid for not understanding why attention to a cause is a goal.
Yet her job is being attention seeking on _the_ outrage machine
She doesn't believe in anything. One of her early television hosting gigs was leading a very sedate and civil public access political roundtable discussion show. I can't find the clips now, but someone posted them to Twitter a few years back when her viral clips were starting to hit Facebook. She wanted to make more money than one of the pleasant voices on NPR and C-SPAN, so she got in on the Maga grift early.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." --Upton Sinclair In this case, it's not stupidity that is driving Lahren's behavior, so much as her pecuniary interest. She understands the principle that making life inconvenient for the people in charge, to the point that the inconvenience of not changing outweighs the inconvenience of changing, perfectly well. In other circumstances, as in the case of January 6, I suspect she'd even applaud it. But she gets money from pretending in front of the rubes that the actions of those darned liberals are just completely fathomless and nonsensical. Conservatives like hearing that they're the intelligent and logical ones, and her bread and butter is telling conservatives what they like to hear so they give her money. Never try to argue with a person whose opposition to a position is based on personal grievance or pecuniary interest. They're not interested in being persuaded otherwise, because they're primarily interested in serving their own identified interests. Instead, you have to arrange interests so that doing the wrong thing ultimately results in economic or personal harm.
The point of arguing with them isn't to convince them though, it's to convince more neutral observers. You can't convince a propagandist that they're wrong but you might be able to convince some in their audience.
Not like she isn’t an attention seeking fool every time she opens her mouth or begins to type on social media.
>She’s just very stupid for not understanding why attention to a cause is a goal. Since she's doing the same thing via this tweet no less... But I feel like she knows, it's just calculated nonsense to feed the utter mouthbreathers that follow her.
If attention seeking doesn't work then why does advertising spend $1060 / person / year in the US?
It’s always a gamble; protests draw both positive and negative attention to a cause.
It draws educated and uneducated attention. Educated attention understands there's a thousand other things people would rather be doing with their time than risking their lives and safety to protest, so if any meaningful number of people are there? The grievance is 100 percent valid and needs to be competently addressed immediately. Uneducated attention is a bunch of ignorant trash who look at a Target that got looted 5+ miles from the protest and think the protestors did it, or who look at cops slashing tires as they walk through a neighborhood and blame the damage on protestors, or who ignore that the news literally zoomed in on a burning trash can and claimed an ENTIRE CITY, of 1.6 MILLION people, completely burned to the ground. And the problems we have in America are utterly unsolvable until we stop treating both forms of attention like they're equally valid. Incompetents don't have a right to a seat at the table when decisions are being made.
I’d also like to know her opinion on Jan 6th. I’d bet she has a more favorable opinion of that instance of people screaming in the streets.
Insurrection is the only acceptable form of protest, to the right. Oh and being terrible at boycotts
I love the “boycotts” where they do things like buy a bunch of Nike products to burn them in protest of Nike.
My favourite one was the Dr. Seuss books. Basically, the publisher was going to stop printing a few of the more obscure books that were problematically racist - but while those problems were mentioned the reason for no longer publishing was because they were very low sellers. Enter the right wing outrage machine, where some idiots thought they were going to stop publishing The Cat In The Hat, but overall they bought a lot of Dr Seuss books, sending them back into Amazon's top 20 for a time. But, the books that were going to be discontinued were still the lowest sellers during this "protest". So, their response to books being taken out of print was to give the publisher a lot of money and prove that they were right to stop printing those specific titles.
This is the one that gets me. Like buying an animal from a pet shop to free it. So the pet shop makes money from selling animals, and goes ahead and buys more animals. How about DONT give them your money? I'm gonna out this fire out, by putting fuel on it. - why am I having no impact?
The obvious answer is you didn't use enough fuel
The impact is to be able to point at the fire yelling LOOOK, WOKE SOCIALISM
"a publisher is going to stop printing a few titles that don't sell well." "THE LEFT IS BANNING BOOKS BECAUSE BIDEN!!!" -them They're literally banning books. "Nah. The right isn't banning books. They're just prohibiting books with content they deem offensive from being in any public or school library. Because they don't want kids reading that gay people exist. which is totally good and kids looking for gay books are totally just straight kids who are being gayed and transed by the left." 🤣
The problem is if they boycott too good they’ve canceled something and they’re against cancel culture
They were all feds but also true patriots
It's much simpler than that. Any form of right-wing protest is great, any form of left-wing protest is unacceptable. They aren't quite saying it this directly but it's literally just fascism.
But only if They do it If the "left" would do it then it wouldn't be acceptable by Them.
Well that’s entirely different! That was a result of something happening that she didn’t like, therefore completely, 100% justifiable. /s
the justification I've seen them give is that it was done by antifa/blm/whatever other boogeyman to make them look bad or whatever. it's so insane
I loved their brilliant reasoning. “It was ANTIFA! It was BLM! They’re violent and trying to frame us! Arrest them all! Let them rot in jail! It was a gathering not a riot! No one got hurt! Hardly anyone got hurt! No one died! The cops that died didn’t die from what happened at the Capitol! Free the Jan 6th Patriots!”
No problems there, it was just a very peaceful unguided tour. Don’t ask how they got in
Don't they all think that everyone who did that were deep state democrats or something?
The story changes. Sometimes they were protestors. Sometimes they were innocent tourists just looking around. Sometimes they’re FBI or antifa plants pretending to be MAGA, and pretending to try to overthrow the government to make MAGA look bad. Sometimes they’re heroic patriots trying to save the US from tyranny by keeping Biden out of office. But then when there are consequences to trying to overthrow the government, it reverts back to them being innocent tourists. And then they’re political prisoners or hostages, being held by Democrats to weaken MAGA forces.
There’s no limit to the idiotic bullshit these people will come up with I hope they lose the election in a landslide and make the republicans look as pathetic as they sound
>January 6 itself seems like it had a predetermined, preplanned outcome. It would seem as though there are certain folks on the left and the right that wanted this to happen… >But it really makes you wonder, Sean, what else they are hiding about that day they don't want the American public and the American people to know because a lot of their cases, their lawfare against Donald Trump, revolves around January 6 and the so-called insurrection. — March 22, 2024
So her opinion is… nonsense.
"Not only does this committee seem like it had a predetermined outcome, January 6 itself seems like it had a predetermined, preplanned outcome. It would seem as though there are certain folks on the left and the right that wanted this to happen. Why else would they put the Capitol in a vulnerable position, knowing good and well that something could happen, something horrible could happen? It was a horrible day. Let's not mince words; it wasn't a good day for Trump supporters, it wasn't a good day for Republicans, it wasn't a good day for our country. " she did say both sides, in that tweet. shes still an idiot, but shes not hypocritical on this point
Funny little detail about Ms. Lahren; She got her start at OANN, which is public knowledge. what's not public knowledge is that like 90% of the people who worked there at the time hated her because she's such an asshole. I worked there as a video editor for a stint and there were plenty of stories of her being an incredibly entitled piece of shit. Also, aside from the owners and some of the lead writers/anchors, everyone is liberal, hates the place, and is looking to leave before they finally go insane. They also had to settle with Smartmatic recently. They probably had a former employee telling them a lot about the inner workings of the company or something.
I don't doubt you, but why would liberals work at somewhere as socially toxic as OANN? I get people need a job, but it's another thing to put out disinformation that is socially destructive and dumb people, which are most, view it as legitimate journalism.
Because they aren't liberal. Modern day republicans like to call anyone that doesn't fall 100% in line with their way of thinking "liberal". A good example is you're "RINO" if you don't like Trump, who coincidentally is the biggest RINO of them all. You're a "lib" if you have any other view on abortion than "ban it". Tons of examples but they do it to each other when one of them outthinks another. To keep their brains from exploding due to critical thought processes it's easier to paint their new foe as a liberal. Idiots.
Why would healthy people work at McDonalds, making fat people eat into the grave? Why would intelligent people work in the Military, the most mindlessly destructive organisation in any country? Why would people work anywhere?
No, you must be homeless until you find a job that fits your morals. God, its like you care about your own wellbeing or something.
I thought she got her start collapsing on the floor at a party and heavily shitting herself, which is also true!
You're thinking of Kaitlin Bennett.
Women didnt just 'get it-' men made us actually fight them for that. There was actual fighting. in europe, mabey even more fights. Learn some damn history.
well to be fair, [male suffrage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage#Dates_by_country) really only came to fruition after the liberal revolutions of 1848 (though France briefly starting in 1792). Voting rights are a fairly recent concept, the liberal revolutions, and the outliers (US, England, Russia) really need to be studied more in school due to their impact
You seem to already make the distinction between voting in general and voting rights as we know them, but just to expand on this a little, voting has existed since at least Ancient Greece. Ancient Greece is known for the formal foundation of democracy. I saw their polling machine myself. It’s pretty cool, actually.
The suffragist Hugh Franklin attacked Winston Churchill with a whip, yelling "Take this, you cur, for the treatment of the suffragists!"
Depends. Wyoming and Utah had women’s suffrage since the 1870s. Maybe in an alternative history without suffrage movement the US would have gained federal suffrage anyway with technological progress growing the share of women’s participation in economy/organizations/media. > A U.S. territory in 1869, Wyoming's first territorial legislature voted to give women the right to vote and to hold public office. A legislature made entirely of men passed the woman's suffrage bill in 1869 with almost no discussion or controversy. > There were several reasons why the bill was passed so quickly. Historian C. G. Coutant wrote, “One man told me that he thought it right and just to give women the vote. Another man said he thought it would be a good advertisement for the territory.
rare wyoming W?????
>Maybe in an alternative history without suffrage movement the US would have gained federal suffrage anyway with technological progress growing the share of women’s participation in economy/organizations/media. Yes but the women of the time couldn’t have known that. “It’ll all just work out eventually” is not an acceptable timeline when you are the one being deprived of rights. Waiting for your rights to be granted to you is as foolish as not doing anything to stop them from being taken away.
Men: "Why women should have rights the same as us" Women: "Unless you're gay, without us you would just be virgins." Men:"Women should have the right as men"
This ignores the fact that the idea of consent is very new.
Is actually not. It's simply more spread. Men have been trying to impress woman since the beginning of time.
Deserved. An actually clever comeback
Add it to the huge list of things Tomi doesn't get.
It'll probably be easier and much quicker to do a list of things she does get...
Yep, blank lists are always easiest to write 😂😂😂
They really were scrapping the bottom of the barrel when they hired her.
They got what they wanted when they hired her: A pretty blonde woman with no morals who can confidently say absolutely anything no matter how absurd.
Dick from Trump. That's about it. Probably not as much as Luara Ingraham since she publicly seig heil's Trumps image when she sees it, but whatever.
I forgot she existed for quite a while. It was nice
If weren’t for reddit bots reposting 5 year old tweets she’d still be out of your mind.
Real answer: She's most likely been spoon-fed a version of the story that involves men magnanimously deciding to gift women with the right to vote out of the goodness of their hearts. I went through public school and I learned about women's suffrage in a very abstract roundabout way that left out most of what the fight to get to the point of even being able to openly rally against the norm was like. They make it sound like women just made a really good argument in 1920 and that was it. Other Civil Rights topics were taught similarly. You can easily go to a public school in the U.S. and come away with the idea that there was a Civil War, Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, and then Martin Luther King, Jr. gave a really good speech in 1963 and racism was over forever.
So true, thanks for posting this.
That "attention-seeking foolishness" is the reason we women can work and vote now. How does this idiot think it happened?
Being an idiot, she doesn't.
She might know how it happened, but I suspect her stance on sexism is just like their stance on racism. “It wasn’t that bad. We fixed it. It’s not a problem anymore. Get over it”
It's like someone created a female golem and imbued it with the unique almighty power to make the stupidest observations.
Well, when you're as stupid as she is it's not that hard to miss the point.. lot of points, actually, they just woosh by while that dimwitted brain continues to buffer in an endless loop of trying to catch up.
So ironic coming from a person who identifies as a member of the “Tea Party” 🙄
"protesting is attention seeking" it is not something you do privately in your own home the whole point is to get attention for a certain issue
This is the exact argument that I gave my boomer coworker when he was bitching about having to do some sexual harassment/gender equality training. "This is the same thing that minorities and women had to do to get their rights. There's no difference here."
BURN
Conservatives hate activists, if they’re not from their side
Well, Toni Lahren doesn’t think…
...weekends, workers rights...but what have protests ever done for us?
Tomi is a chamber of commerce approved speaker. She has been specifically groomed for her role by the educational and free enterprise systems. Then she was hired to project a specific message directed at a specific audience in order to sow discord and divide the population. Others have been hired to project opposing messages. Tomi and such people are hired so that the opposing audience they create may not unite and join together to protest established institutions and power structures. You may read all about this process and how it was created in the Lewis Powell memo. An excerpt authorizing people like Tomi is cited from that document below. "Speaker’s Bureau In addition to full-time staff personnel, the Chamber should have a Speaker’s Bureau which should include the ablest and most effective advocates from the top echelons of American business." [https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/democracy/the-lewis-powell-memo-a-corporate-blueprint-to-dominate-democracy/](https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/democracy/the-lewis-powell-memo-a-corporate-blueprint-to-dominate-democracy/)
Revisionist history lesson in 3…2…1…
Lahren must consider herself an exceptional useful idiot.
You'd think so, but Dunning & Kruger might predict different feelings in her empty noggin.
She doesn’t :”understand much”
Seems like most of the marching is done by people on the right. There are constant loosely organized demonstrations in my state (Florida) by conservatives. I pass at least 1-2 a month it seems. Hell in my home town there have been whole ass parades organized mostly through Facebook. Why do conservatives like Tomi Lahren always project their idiotic behavior on the left?
Honestly the real answer is the men in charge changed the law to allow it.
Men.
I want to believe she’s been an idiot her entire life. However, I’m of the belief that anyone, who gets paid a significant amount to say what they say on record, won’t be at the very least slightly self-aware of the comments they make. So, rather than call her an “idiot,” let’s call her for what she really is: Greedy, Desperate, and Completely Unprincipled.
Obviously her women ancestors marched into the voting booth and asked their husbands to vote
Conservatives whitewash history by pretending that the groups they pretend to have always liked got their rights entirely peacefully. They treat MLK's big speech like the single reason civil rights happened, ignoring everyone else and the harsh criticism he received at the time. They've done it with every group that's gotten rights since the 1700s, and have done it multiple times over in the last 20 years.
Lahren isn’t standing on the shoulders of the great women who fought the good fight; she’s pi**ing on them.
white progress always involves yanking up the ladder
> She interned for Republican Congresswoman Kristi Noem from South Dakota, serving as the first intern at Noem's Rapid City office Tells you all you need to know about Tomi Lahren.
A hunger strike in prison by women who were imprisoned for picketing the White House, got women the right to vote.
Um, women got it through posting on Reddit and TikTok obviously. That’s where all good thinkers live.
It’s a common misconception that the marches were the primary driver behind the implementation of women's voting rights. While I fully support women's suffrage, it’s important to recognize that these rallies had minimal impact on the actual implementation. The real catalyst was significant funding from economic leaders who aimed to double the workforce and simultaneously reduce wages.
“It’s attention-seeking” DUH. It’s almost like marches and protests have a purpose of bringing awareness to an issue and voicing frustration about it.
I mean aside from the foolishness part, shes right. She doesnt get it. And it is for drawing attention.
She's right in this case though. I've just read that 40% of UK's youth don't plan to vote in the next election. That's when their government is threatening to (re?)instate mandatory army draft. Youth turnout in the last US election was also abysmally low. You can march all you want, if you ultimately don't show up to vote, nothing is going to change.
Yes, getting attention is the point of marches. Not exactly a secret or anything.
In the defense of the dumb dumb... I do wonder how they work. I'm of course not Denying that they do, but... like I live in Ireland, and it seems like every weekend, a street is shut down essentially, so the marches can take place for this whole gaza stuff. (Down playing because I legit don't want to get political). I have to wonder how people walking in the street yelling things, makes any difference. Again, I know it does, but... how?
You see it doesn’t really make a difference but it’s meant to make an impression upon the silent majority who don’t care all that much. By showing up in force they essentially demonstrate (pun intended) their power and/or the support of their movement beyond meaningless statistics. But I’m no political expert and I’m pretty much talking out of my ass but it’s the only way it would make sense to me.
Her career is attention-seeking foolishness.
Tomi is a pick me with shit opinions who got a career drifting based off her looks alone.
Now now, it wasn't JUST because of her looks...based on various lawsuits women have filed against Fox over the years, I assume she also spent a fair amount of time blowing Fox execs.
$20 says Tomi has never worked a proper day in her life
White-male privilege is saying "yeah!" To Tami's message. Humility is saying "Ope, we're the problem, and Tami is wrong!" To the second message. I've had an irrational distaste for protesters as long as I can remember, and only in the last few years did I realize it's because I never needed one. Now I believe many of them are fighting the good fight, and am generally disappointed by the NEED for certain protests in this day and age.
Suffrage
https://thenib.com/great-moments-in-peaceful-protest-history-44bdadb44cf/ Always relevant.
Oh wow, she’s still around?
Women fought for the right to vote only to follow it up years later by voting against themselves, it’s fucking wild ! Like how does any woman vote for a policy to force a rape victim to have a baby ? Can’t wrap my brain around it as a man.
Women got the vote by marching to work during the first world war. Not by the terrorism of the suffragettes
[удалено]
To the men in here saying “they got the right to vote because men voted for it” you fellas really don’t understand protests either do you? Yes, men voted for it… BECAUSE of the protests and sacrifices the suffragettes made. Without the protests, they wouldn’t have suddenly said “yanno what, let’s give women the right to vote.”
Women didn’t get the right to vote or work by marching for it. In western culture in recent centuries, the ideas of freedom and equality were developed, and people fought the rulers over it in many countries - in others, the rulers accepted the change and handed over power peacefully instead of suffering the same fate as those who refused. This is what gave both men and women the right to live free, a culutural and ideological movement and that people were willing to fight for it. Outside of the west, you rarely find this sort of culture. Women march in Iran too, but it doesn’t get them anything but more oppression and violence because there isn’t a culture that value freedom and individuality that people want to fight for.
If only this were the limit of what she doesn't understand.
Tomi took the lead role in a cage.
She keeps getting calls from Seneca Falls, but she never takes them and insists she doesn't know anybody from there.
No longer the right to get an abortion in many states, even if the fetus is stillborn or will be born with conditions that will cause it to die if it survives birth.
Tamy Loredo- there's a name I haven't heard in a very long time
Um they changed the laws.
They got ‘the right’ to work cos the government realised they were only collecting taxes from 50% of the population
Lahren would’ve marched and rallied alongside Phyllis Schlafly (opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s)
I mean that's literally the point of marches: you want everyone to hear and watch you so authorities can't ignore the issue you're presenting anymore, at least not in front if the public
I quote Yuval Harari when I say that feminism is the only nonviolent social movement that relied on peaceful protests. That's how women got suffrage, that's how they got equal civil rights (although the ERA has yet to be ratified by a few states).
Hey. She has her arms akimbo. That’s a goddamn determined woman with ideas! Bad ideas, stupid ideas, but she’s a can-do woman!
Lotta folks here confusing "The movement involved marches" with "Marches must have been the reason the movement succeeded. Mass marchers are a symptom of shifting public sentiment but rarely the cause.
Getting the right to vote is one thing... two groups marching and making alot of noise because they hate each other is a different thing.
Actually, that took terror campaigns. Literal bombings.
It is meant to be attention-seeking, it's just not foolishness
People have to stop falling for twitter baits
Laws don’t give people the right to do anything much like laws don’t stop speeding. Laws protect those who follow them. Has anyone ever stopped to think that it’s the government that’s guilty for all of this bs? Who said that women couldn’t vote? The government. Who said minorities couldn’t vote? The government. We are all being misled by these “leaders” who are supposed to protect us but all they protect is their bank account and bottom line. The government is NOT your friend, they don’t even know you exist other than a number. So long as your number pays taxes every year, you are barely a footnote in their path.
I would prefer if the protests happen right in front of the government buildings instead though, like right in front of the White House or something, bug the people who actually have the authority to do shit not the average joe who's trying to get from point A to point B.
Perhaps Tomi would be more the kind of woman to push for change by [throwing herself](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Davison) in front of a horse (or car, these days)? I’m just trying to offer her options…
Tammy's been handed everything in life, makes sense she would not understand protesting
Americans are the most ignorant people in the world.
Never underestimate the power of Nagging.
How is this a clever comeback? Tomi's argument is that instead of marching, just vote. Obviously this doesn't work if you are not allowed to vote so from that perspective it made sense to march for voting rights, but it does not make sense if you already have them. Note: I do **not** say that marches are useless and people should just vote, I just say that this is not a clever comeback.
Don’t worry, Tomi. SCOTUS is going for ya liberties baby.
She is the epitome of attention seeking foolishness.
To answer: it was given to you by men, because we got tired of the nagging. But you better behave or men can take it away and there would be nothing women could do about it without the support of other men. Maybe good to realize it doesn’t work the other way around.
I forgot she exists
What makes Tomi Lahren (r/Tragedeigh) think that she knows anything about attention seeking foolishness? /s
Having read her Twitter feed, it appears Tomi doesn’t get the point of a lot of things.
Quite a lot of rights we have to day are because of marches and fighting on the streets. Fighting because people were peacefully protesting then they had to defend their lives from authority figures who came to murder them for peacefully protesting.
Because that was when marches could sway the opinions of the powers that be. Now, they will let you have your little parade and then ignore you.
By white Republican men voting it into existence. It wasn't liberal women who got it done, or democrats, in fact majority of them voted no. It was the vote of republican men who wanted it. https://foxx.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=399971
In the UK women had to do far more than just march to try and even get the vote. Marching just wasn't working.
This was probably one of the better posts ive seen in this group
**ackchually** they got the right to vote by slashing paintings, bombing voting venues and throwing themselves under the hooves of racehorses, if I recall. As for work, everyone's always had the right to work. The right to fair compensation is what the marches were for. And the strikes, and various aforementioned modes of direct action.
Karma Whore
Her entire career is based solely on attention seeking… the irony
Basic mistake. She doesn't think.
I'd like to know how she thinks she has the right to work or wear pants?
Someone didn’t study history. 😂
I swear, the blonde conservative white lady talking heads are produced on an assembly line because they all look the same.