I mean, did you forget that the Democrats started it? They launched a campaign to call Republicans weird in a derisive and condescending way. Democrats used it as an attack, as a negative trait, as something gross and repulsive. It doesn’t make sense to me, and I still have no idea what they were trying to accomplish with this strategy. Did they forget that a good part of their base takes pride in being weird?
Difference between fun weird and fucks a couch weird. Ironically jd is an example of the exact slippery slope argument used by the bad weird type to fight gay marriage originally.
Well the couch thing is not real of course, but also not sure what you mean about the slippery slope. I guess maybe the bad weird thing kind of makes sense though, but that’s open to interpretation and pretty relative to what you consider normal.
I’ve never seen proof he didn’t fuck a couch, any more than I’ve seen proof Glenn Beck didn’t rape and murder a young girl in 1990 (look it up if you don’t know what I’m referring to, is on the wiki).
Re slippery slope, conservatives love them: for trans rights it’s “I identify as an attack helicopter”, 20 years ago it was “what if people want to marry their pets”. No real difference in the sociopathy of those offering up the suggestion, just a new front line.
I do agree there’s a line: there’s on one part the paradox of acceptance or whatever it’s called which is explicit. In this case we are also saying it’s weird to hold beliefs that are so out of touch with reality or the people they impact. It’s weird to care what restroom people use, especially for those of us in states that have removed the victorian stigma on all-gender shitters. It’s weird to care what sports other people play. It’s weird to make up lies about Olympic athletes in order to push your agenda of making life worse for a 12 year old in Virginia. It’s all weird.
Path to fascism and handmaid’s tale are also slippery slopes though. I don’t think the right has a monopoly on that kind of rhetoric. The rest of that is kind of weird, though understandably can be hard to get used to for people who struggle with change. But I’m not sure I agree about sports. I think that’s a complicated topic and feel bad for women who want to be competitive in their own space. The Olympics thing is even more complicated than the usual transgender debate, but ultimately women’s sports is going to have to decide how exclusionary they are going to be. They already exclude men, so they will have to determine who else to exclude in order to protect their competition. Maybe the answer is to be less exclusive, but anyway that’s why this is a hard topic.
You can jump to extremist rhetoric and zero sum game thinking, but I don’t think it helps anything. It’s no better than what the worst of them are doing.
I’m talking about things like pointing to extreme views and radicals on the other side as though they are examples of the norm, intentionally propagating lies, bad faith arguments etc. The sort of thing that is only about your team winning and the other team losing. Discussing ideas is much more interesting than circle jerking about how evil such and such is or intentionally spreading misinformation because you know it helps your team.
And yes, your examples would be the same type of thing, though I’d have to take your word for it that they happened that way.
It’s effective precisely because it bothers conservatives while being 100% fine for most liberals. It’s not a contradiction, because the two groups react differently, and the people using the word know that.
I mean, did you forget that the Democrats started it? They launched a campaign to call Republicans weird in a derisive and condescending way. Democrats used it as an attack, as a negative trait, as something gross and repulsive. It doesn’t make sense to me, and I still have no idea what they were trying to accomplish with this strategy. Did they forget that a good part of their base takes pride in being weird?
Difference between fun weird and fucks a couch weird. Ironically jd is an example of the exact slippery slope argument used by the bad weird type to fight gay marriage originally.
Well the couch thing is not real of course, but also not sure what you mean about the slippery slope. I guess maybe the bad weird thing kind of makes sense though, but that’s open to interpretation and pretty relative to what you consider normal.
I’ve never seen proof he didn’t fuck a couch, any more than I’ve seen proof Glenn Beck didn’t rape and murder a young girl in 1990 (look it up if you don’t know what I’m referring to, is on the wiki).
Re slippery slope, conservatives love them: for trans rights it’s “I identify as an attack helicopter”, 20 years ago it was “what if people want to marry their pets”. No real difference in the sociopathy of those offering up the suggestion, just a new front line.
I do agree there’s a line: there’s on one part the paradox of acceptance or whatever it’s called which is explicit. In this case we are also saying it’s weird to hold beliefs that are so out of touch with reality or the people they impact. It’s weird to care what restroom people use, especially for those of us in states that have removed the victorian stigma on all-gender shitters. It’s weird to care what sports other people play. It’s weird to make up lies about Olympic athletes in order to push your agenda of making life worse for a 12 year old in Virginia. It’s all weird.
Path to fascism and handmaid’s tale are also slippery slopes though. I don’t think the right has a monopoly on that kind of rhetoric. The rest of that is kind of weird, though understandably can be hard to get used to for people who struggle with change. But I’m not sure I agree about sports. I think that’s a complicated topic and feel bad for women who want to be competitive in their own space. The Olympics thing is even more complicated than the usual transgender debate, but ultimately women’s sports is going to have to decide how exclusionary they are going to be. They already exclude men, so they will have to determine who else to exclude in order to protect their competition. Maybe the answer is to be less exclusive, but anyway that’s why this is a hard topic.
You can jump to extremist rhetoric and zero sum game thinking, but I don’t think it helps anything. It’s no better than what the worst of them are doing.
Extremist rhetoric?
You’re talking about the bomb threats on schools and the crowds baying for blood at Trump rallies, right?
I’m talking about things like pointing to extreme views and radicals on the other side as though they are examples of the norm, intentionally propagating lies, bad faith arguments etc. The sort of thing that is only about your team winning and the other team losing. Discussing ideas is much more interesting than circle jerking about how evil such and such is or intentionally spreading misinformation because you know it helps your team.
And yes, your examples would be the same type of thing, though I’d have to take your word for it that they happened that way.
Don’t take my word for it, even Trump acknowledges it: https://time.com/4605647/donald-trump-vicious-violent-supporters/
It’s effective precisely because it bothers conservatives while being 100% fine for most liberals. It’s not a contradiction, because the two groups react differently, and the people using the word know that.