Also, one curious left-right asymmetry is that people on the right will say, without the teeniest hint of shame, the most outrageous stuff about the left -- like, that we're literal satan-worshiping baby eaters.
And even if they get some pushback for it, the right always barrels through and keeps on doing it until everybody else just shrugs and gives up I guess. Like this "leftism is a religion!" thing is a pretty old canard, which righties have been moaning about since GWB
At the same time, if somebody seen as on the left side (left, liberal, Democrat etc.) says something like "Republicans are motivated by racism" or "Trump supporters are racist" we always get SO much pushback.
"Oh, surely you don't mean RACIST, that's an offensive thing to say!"
There seems to be this idea that *calling* something "racist" or "fascist" or "evil" is so outrageous that the standards for what makes something any of those things are set impossibly high.
You know, they'll admit, reluctantly, that actual historical Nazis were fascists, or that the KKK is racist, or that the Inquisition was evil. But surely no MODERN people or actions are like that! How could you say that! So offensive!
But the fainting couch only gets pulled out if it's left calling right. Right is ALWAYS pointing the finger at left. "You woke BLM CRT fascists are the REAL racists, also the real fascists, everything you want to do is evil"
I have fallen for this rhetoric in the past -- succumbed to this shaming -- "oh, Republicans seem racist, kinda fascist, sometimes downright evil to me, but I guess I'm just being judgmental"
The quoted tweet here is a good example of type -- chiding people on, presumably the left side, or the NON Republican side anyway, for having too low an opinion of the Republican side, and this low opinion is what "prevents unity"
Sorry, that was hard to follow. This is the tweet I was talking about. The premise is that politics of distrust favors the right, therefore the left must... unilaterally trust, I guess?
And this happens all the time. The left gets shamed into meeting the right halfway, the right moves further right, we get shamed into meeting them halfway again, etc. etc.
Sometimes I compare it to the way "good kids" get shamed into accepting worse treatment. "oh, I know we let your brother get away with all that stuff you get in trouble for, but it's just because we expect more from you!"
It's 9 am so I guess that's the end of the thread. Have a Friday everybody!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
On a side note, the very first thing we were given to analyze in our AP lit class, start of senior year, was The Metamorphosis. I think it was supposed to make analyzing everything else seem easy in comparison? I dunno, it was one of my favorite things we read that year.
One of the challenges of scholastic literary analysis is that "because it's funny" is rarely considered an acceptable answer to the question "why did the author put that in there?"
The first evangelical weak spot that popped into my head was "extremely gullible." They're prone to snake oil, pyramid schemes, wacked-out conspiracy theories, plus grift and fraud of all kinds.
Can we use that against them?
And that presents a problem. Because, yes, if you just want to drain them of money, you can probably use the "extremely gullible" weakness to do it, but that probably doesn't lessen their political power in any meaningful way.
I don't know what I should have done differently @paulcarp13 dropped me off at yoga on Capitol Hill at 4:45 and realized he didn't have his phone, we made an arrangement: "if I go home I'll text you, otherwise I'll be at Optimism Brewing when yoga gets out at 6:30" Then --
At 6:30 I went to Optimism and couldn't find him. I stayed there through one beer, then used the restroom & did one final sweep through the restaurant, assumed he must have gone home after all? Took the bus home.
By the time I got here it was 8:30 and of course he wasn't here, the car wasn't here, but his phone is still here.
So I thought, what am I supposed to do at this point? Go BACK to Capitol Hill? But that would take me at least an hour and he's the one with the car.
Just out here on Twitter pissing off the Catholic boys.
His original statement was talking about going to Pride:
"We all know where the church stands on homogenital acts, and I affirm that teaching [..] What if we lead with love?"
"Then maybe people might take a chance to come to mass, and there they might [progress toward giving up homosexuality]”
He took offense that I characterized that as "luring"
If you've been watching me rant on here, you know that I believe the "a zygote is the same as a baby" argument is not elevating the zygote, it's dehumanizing the baby.
Which, incidentally, is why "a crab is the same as a person" arguments piss me off, sorry vegans.
I think that's an important part of the connection between the anti-abortion movement, white supremacy, and patriarchy -- this idea that personhood doesn't belong to actual persons, but is rather conveyed by the state.