The weird thing is, I can *easily* envision his audience believing both that Q is virtuous and that Q is a myth, just as they can simultaneously believe that the attack on the capitol was virtuous and that antifa did it.
Purest tribal epistemology.
Purest tribal epistemology.
https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1364382856961744900
The criteria for these claims is not correspondence to external reality. It's correspondence to the interests of the conservative tribe. Two things that are mutually contradictory based on the first metric can coexist peacefully based on the second metric.
Indeed I imagine this is the standard RW take on the insurrection: insofar as it was good (brave patriots fighting a stolen election), it was conservatives; insofar as it was bad (violence, dead cops), it was antifa. These should not be understood as empirical claims ...
... but rather statements of identity. It's not that what conservatives do happens to be good but that "conservative" and "good" mean the same thing. "Antifa" and "bad" mean the same thing. The narrative that puts conservatives in a good light is not true by virtue of evidence...
... it's true by definition. Conservatives are good; good is what conservatives do; when it's bad, it's not conservative. Libs are bad; bad is what libs do; when it's bad, it's libs. The left wastes time when it treats these as factual claims rather than affirmations of identity.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
