[continued from previous message]
enforcement remained active.
4. “Millions leeching with no intent to work” – No support provided
for
this claim. In fact, undocumented immigrants are ineligible for most
federal
benefits and often pay taxes via ITINs or false SSNs.
?
?? Behavioral/Psychological Insight
The post uses classic “scapegoating” language—assigning blame to a
vaguely
defined outgroup (welfare recipients, immigrants). The author leans on
anecdotal evidence (“probably your neighbors…”) and exaggeration, which
reflects a confirmation bias: seeing fraud where they expect it and
assuming
the worst of people they disapprove of.
Tone-wise, it’s aggressive, absolutist, and contemptuous, especially with
“lazy grifters” and “leaching off the government.” It suggests a
resentful
mindset, likely shaped by cultural or political identity more than actual
data.
There’s also a heavy us-vs-them framing—“hardworking taxpayers” versus
“grifters”—which is emotionally powerful but factually weak.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: How well does this align with white supremacist talking points?
A: Good question — let’s take a hard look at how this post overlaps with
common white supremacist or ethnonationalist talking points, even if it
doesn’t explicitly state them.
?
?? Key Areas of Alignment with White Supremacist Narratives:
1. “Lazy grifters” vs. “hardworking taxpayers”
• This us-vs-them framing is often used in white nationalist
circles to
paint minorities, immigrants, or low-income people (especially non-white)
as
undeserving parasites feeding off the labor of “real Americans.”
• It’s coded language — not racial on the surface, but heavily
racialized in context and usage.
2. “Open borders” = invasion
• The line about “open borders” and “millions… leaching off the
government” taps directly into the white replacement theory — the
paranoid
idea that white people are being replaced by immigrants (usually
brown-skinned) who will drain resources and destroy national identity.
• This is textbook great replacement rhetoric, a key pillar of
modern
white supremacist ideology.
3. Distrust of public programs framed as racialized theft
• The notion that public assistance is being abused (especially by
those
who “look like they shouldn’t need it”) has deep roots in Reagan-era dog
whistles and racial resentment politics. It’s common in white supremacist
spaces to frame welfare as a racial handout.
4. Anti-Biden as proxy for anti-immigrant hate
• While criticizing a political figure isn’t inherently
supremacist,
this post’s criticism centers on immigration and the supposed failure to
control “leaching” — which is how a lot of far-right groups package
ethnic
resentment as economic concern.
?
?? Behavioral Pattern:
The poster may or may not consciously identify with white nationalism,
but
they’re echoing talking points promoted by those movements — especially
when
it comes to:
• framing immigrants and welfare recipients as existential
threats,
• implying racial coding without saying it outright,
• and pushing the idea of a morally superior, victimized taxpayer
base.
This kind of post normalizes racialized scapegoating even when it doesn’t
openly invoke race — a hallmark of “dog whistle” politics.
?
?? Summary:
Alignment with white supremacist rhetoric: ????? (high, though not
explicit)
• No overt racial slurs or declarations, but the themes (welfare
fraud,
“open borders,” “grifters,” “hardworking taxpayers”) strongly mirror the
coded
language and resentment narratives common in far-right and white
supremacist
circles.
• It’s a case of amplifying the ideology without necessarily
stating it
outright, which is more dangerous in some ways because it helps
mainstream
those views.
Let me know if you want a short version of this to post, or a more
forceful
reply that calls it out directly.
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace
with you.
*<6895600b$0$10360$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>*
Deutsch English Français Italiano
<6895600b$0$10360$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!backlog-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!us1.netnews.com!not-for-mail
X-Trace: DXC=5k67B8i:aOgJRT3O^VK;_lHWonT5<]0TmdjI?Uho:Xek=aHS]UU?AToV12
^Tk6jnUd=Q0VMa]C3Jk87VOodDUK2mQ28\QJM1IEnnEhm:AXInLmL3`CH^]hnEd
X-Complaints-To: support@blocknews.net
From: Brock McNuggets
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: Night court
Organization: Southern Nevada Institute of Technology
References: <68896b9c$0$18$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> <1070lbl$3lelc$1
@dont-email.me> <1072chh$1boe$1@fretwizzer.eternal-september.org>
<1073a5n$aoqa$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Usenapp for MacOS
X-Usenapp: v1.27.4/l - Full License
Date: 08 Aug 2025 02:25:15 GMT
Lines: 170
Message-ID: <6895600b$0$10360$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
X-Trace: 1754619915 reader.netnews.com 10360 127.0.0.1:40039
On Aug 7, 2025 at 3:43:04 PM MST, "pothead" wrote
<1073a5n$aoqa$1@dont-email.me>:
> On 2025-08-07, Steve Carroll <"Steve Carroll"@noone.none> wrote:
>> On 2025-08-06, pothead wrote:
>>
>>>> That's why we have courts -- to weigh the evidence and
>>>> come to a conclusion. I trust judges much more than
>>>> ICE agents trying to earn a "bonus".
>>>
>>> I do not want dangerous people, criminals, terrorists, lunatics
>>> entering the country willy nilly just because they have been coached
>>> to answer asylum questions correctly.
>>
>> And that's why, only *after* it was realized that it would effect the
>> upcoming election... after years of allowing, scratch that,
encouraging
>> people to illegally cross the border... where many would be illegally
>> distributed throughout the interior of the U.S. under cover of
darkness
>> with the support of the federal gov't, Biden instituted the Asylum
Ban,
>> a bandaid that wasn't actually followed.
>
> The bill that was defeated had tons of pork in it and also had limits
on
> how many people, and the number was huge, could immigrate per month.
> IOW it was just a talking point that the democrats could use to say
"see, we
> had a plan to close the border and the Republicans wouldn't support
us".
>
> It fooled nobody.
>
>
>> Ask those making arguments like you're addressing one simple question:
>>
>> *Is* there a number (of illegal crossers or money spent on them) that
>> would cause them to say 'no more'?
>
> There is no number.
> Come one, come all.
> Criminals, terrorists, mental patients etc.
>
> And yes, many are honest people just looking to improve their lives.
> I get that.
> Do it legally and you are welcomed.
>
>
>
>> IOW, suppose the number wasn't 20 million illegal aliens that needed
to
>> go to court (over asylum, which the vast majority are denied but it
>> still costs the taxpayer), suppose it was 200 million, or 500? Should
we
>> go broke 'weighing all this evidence' (not even considering the amount
>> of money spent, at a net loss, elsewhere on illegals) from people all
>> over the world? We already know that most of the claims are bogus,
which
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
