"Our beautiful Diamond, of Diamond and Silk, has just passed away at her home in the State she loved so much, North Carolina."

"Silk was with her all the way, and at her passing. There was no better TEAM anywhere, or at any time! Diamond’s death was totally unexpected, probably her big and precious HEART just plain gave out. Rest In Peace our Magnificent Diamond, you will be greatly missed!"

Writes Donald Trump, on Truth.

ADDED: From my blog archive, dated April 15, 2018, "The NYT explains Diamond and Silk to its readers as 'a modern-day minstrel show' aimed at 'white conservatives'..."

Excited?

Trump’s Campaign announces its all-star line-up of speakers for new scaled down Republican Convention. Ted Nugent, Scott Baio, Antonio Sabato Jr, and Diamond and Silk will all appear virtually in Zoom boxes before Trump’s acceptance speech. You can already feel the electricity. pic.twitter.com/AYDMSpRngi

— Mike Sington (@MikeSington) July 26, 2020

I had to look up Antonio Sabato Jr:

Antonio Sabàto Jr. (born February 29, 1972) is an Italian-American former model, actor, and politician. Sabàto first found fame in the 1990s as an underwear model for Calvin Klein and playing Jagger Cates on the soap opera General Hospital from 1992 to 1995. By the early 2000s, most of his acting credits were guest appearances, reality television, and budget films.

So... he's basically Joey Tribbiani?

"'Haters keep saying they hate Diamond and Silk, but you can’t hate what you ain’t never loved!' the sisters, whose real names are Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson, wrote..."

"... on their shared Twitter account Monday evening. Trump shared that message Tuesday morning, writing online: 'But I love Diamond & Silk, and so do millions of people!' The president’s social media post came after CNN reported Saturday that Fox Nation, Fox News’ digital streaming service, had not uploaded a new episode of Diamond and Silk’s weekly show since April 7, and they had not appeared on the network’s broadcast since March.... Although Fox News retains a stable of pro-Trump commentators, the president has grown increasingly frustrated with the network, despite its opinion hosts’ almost unflinchingly positive coverage of his administration. '@FoxNews just doesn’t get what’s happening! They are being fed Democrat talking points, and they play them without hesitation or research,' Trump [tweeted on] Sunday."

Politico reports.

But I love Diamond & Silk, and so do millions of people! https://t.co/RBX9bmFIwH

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 28, 2020

Was there an existing saying "You can’t hate what you ain’t never loved" (or "You can’t hate what you never loved")? If not, great aphorism. But is it true?

I found a discussion on Quora: "Can you not hate what you don't love? Why or why not?" The top answer, written in March 2018, brings up Donald Trump, whom the writer hates:

For example, I utterly loath Donald Trump.... Even with all that, I can honestly say I do not hate the man. The way I see it, hatred is the first step to dehumanizing somebody else. Trump may be a shitty example of a human being, but he is still human...

But he doesn't get into the meat of the question. Is love the precondition for hate? If it is, we are strongly defended from hate! And we have fantastic insight into the haters. Do all those people who really hate Trump actually have love in there somewhere?

It's hard for me to answer, because I don't feel anything that I would call hate. Hate. I do sometimes feel an unaccountable love for Trump — perhaps because I'm seeing him hated, perhaps because Jesus said:

You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love (agapēseis) your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love (agapāte) your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? — Matthew 5:43-46, RSV

But back to the Diamond and Silk aphorism "You can’t hate what you ain’t never loved." It had a ring of truth for me. I'm thinking hate is such a strong emotion that it only counts as real hate if it's a reversal from love. They're saying your rejection of us is nothing because you never liked us in the first place.

The NYT explains Diamond and Silk to its readers as “a modern-day minstrel show” aimed at “white conservatives"...

The NYT gets some strong quotes from critics:

Bree Newsome, an artist and activist, described them in an interview as “a modern-day minstrel show” aimed at “white conservatives who want to believe Trump can’t be racist or they themselves can’t be racist because there are these two black women named Diamond and Silk who are constantly rooting for Trump.”

Ms. Newsome said their performances relied on “stereotypical images of black women” that would not be celebrated on conservative media if they were not Trump supporters.

Keith Boykin, an adjunct professor at Columbia University and a former White House aide to President Bill Clinton, offered a similar critique.

“If these two women, the way they speak, the way they talk and act and behave, were saying anything that was contradictory to Trump, the Trump supporters who defend them would be the first to attack them,” Mr. Boykin said.

Mr. Boykin said their conservative fans, who are often quick to note their race and gender, “only want to listen to the people who reaffirm their narrow, limited vision of what blackness is all about and how black people should perceive white people and specifically how they should perceive Donald Trump.”

The Times ends with this, which I believe is intended to make the point that Newsome is right and Diamond and Silk are indeed a “a modern-day minstrel show” aimed at “white conservatives":

“I turn on my television one night and I see these two on television,” [Trump] told the crowd. “I say they are the greatest, what is it?”

Mr. Trump then asked them to “do a little routine.” The sisters took the microphone and obliged.

“The silent majority has spoken, baby!” Diamond told the crowd. “Build that wall, Donald J. Trump!”

"First of all, if you are a minority and support Trump, there is something wrong with you."

"Secondly, why do people think that 'free speech' entitles them to use free services such as twitter, FB, or YouTube however they like? It doesn't. You want free speech, go start your own website."

The second-highest-rated comment "Facebook told two women their pro-Trump videos were ‘unsafe’" at WaPo. The 2 women are Diamond and Silk.

ADDED: From Zuckerberg's testimony yesterday (via The Federalist, via Instapundit)(boldface added):

Ted Cruz: There are a great many Americans who I think are deeply concerned that Facebook and other tech companies are engaged in a pervasive pattern of bias and political censorship. There have been numerous instances with Facebook. In May of 2016, Gizmodo reported Facebook had purposely and routinely suppressed conservative stories from trending news — including stories about CPAC, about Mitt Romney, about Glenn Beck. In addition to that, Facebook has initially shut down the Chik-fil-A appreciation page, blocked posts of a Fox News reporter, blocked over two dozen Catholic pages and most recently blocked Trump supporters Diamond and Silk’s page with 1.2 million Facebook followers after determining their content and brand were ‘unsafe to the community. To a great many Americans, that appears to be a pervasive pattern of political bias. Do you agree with that assessment?

Zuckerberg: I understand where that concern is coming from, because Facebook and the tech industry are located in Silicon Valley, which is an extremely left-leaning place. This is actually a concern that I have in that I — and I try to root out in the company, is making sure we don’t have any bias in the work we do and I think it is a fair concern that people would wonder about....

Excellent answer by the well-prepped Zuckerberg. I am reading this looking for how Ted Cruz "savages" Zuckerberg. That's the word at The Federalist. Zuckerberg is saying, essentially, that the culture of Silicon Valley is so pervasively left-wing that well-meaning human beings applying what are supposed to be neutral standards may produce bias results. Zuckerberg acknowledges the problem of implicit bias and says he wants to deal with it.

Notice what he doesn't say: We're a private company and we have a right to favor the left over the right. That's the idea in the WaPo comment in the original post.

So far, no "savaging." The excerpt from The Federalist continues:

Cruz: Are you aware of any ad or page that’s been taken down from Planned Parenthood?

Zuckerberg: Senator, I’m not, but let me just …

Cruz: How about MoveOn.org? Or any Democratic candidate from office?

Zuckerberg: I’m not specifically aware. I’m not sure.

Cruz: In your testimony you say you have 15,000 to 20,000 people working on security and content review. Do you know the political orientation of those 15,000 to 20,000 people engaged in content review?

Zuckerberg: No, we do not generally ask people about their political orientation when they’re joining the company.

Cruz: Do you feel it’s your responsibility to assess users, whether they are good and positive connections or ones that those 15,000 to 20,000 people deem unacceptable or deplorable?

Zuckerberg: I think there are a number of things we all agree are clearly bad. Foreign interference in elections. Terrorism. Self-harm.

Cruz: I’m talking censorship.

Zuckerberg: You would probably agree that we should remove terrorist propaganda from the service. We want to get that done and we’re proud of how well we do with that. What I can say, and I do want to get this in — I’m very committed to making sure that Facebook is a platform for all ideas.

Where's the savaging?! Zuckerberg committed to avoiding political bias on Facebook. He didn't give Cruz that fight. Cruz was ready to show that the bias was happening, and Zuckerberg came prepared to defuse that: It can happen inadvertently because the political culture of Silicon Valley is so strong, but he's not defending that — he's working on it. I'm not saying I trust Zuckerberg to do that or even that he sincerely intends to do that. I'm only saying that Cruz gave Zuckerberg nothing he wasn't prepared to deflect.