4 ms·

But there is a difference of orders of magnitude in both size and cohesiveness to wrestle with here The most non-snarky way I can put this is: "Citation needed

But there is a difference of orders of magnitude in both size and cohesiveness to wrestle with here The most non-snarky way I can put this is: "Citation needed". Something that is a left leaning/liberal phenomenon almost exclusively from my experiences is the propensity for shouting a statement into public, and then claiming that anyone who has the temerity to reply to their tweet with anything other than wholehearted agreement is "harassing them", and then immediately blocking them. The right leaning/conservative types tend to argue back with you, perhaps using strong language. Conservatives tend to call you an idiot libtard sheep, liberals tend to call you a racist sexist bigot. (This is one of the benefits of being centrist: both sides don't like you.) This happens when replying to liberal leaning commenters with such regularity that I have taken to mentally rewriting "harass" to "disagree" in the context of Twitter. I've been blocked and called a harasser on Twitter for calling shenanigans on a comment in a much more gentle way than I did above. Have I just harassed you? Twitter's community, and increasingly, their management, would say yes.

dotnetisnotdead 10y ago
I relate to this 100%. I'm a lifelong Democrat, but in the last 2 years the culture has changed so drastically, I am being pushed to the center. I'm not alone in this, and it's bad for democrats. They don't realize it just yet. The over use of "Bigot", "Racist", "Nazi", etc completely devalue the words. They take away their power. 10 years ago nobody wanted to be called a Nazi but now people laugh it off. That's dangerous. We want to be be afraid of being called a racist. We want to discourage it. When Suzy soccer mom says she wants some stricter vetting for refugees she's not the same as Billy Bob sitting in his cabin planning out the burning of black churches. But the left has gone full throttle in that direction. They take the easy path of calling someone a name rather than defend their position, even if it's perfectly defensible. These loud voices are drowning out the moderate, reasonable people on the left, and pushing them away. This is a bad long term strategy.
- nikdaheratik 10y ago
  IMO, it's not what the left is doing that's the problem, though I'm not a fan of it. The problem boils down to: The repeal of campaign finance-> Lots of state legislatures going hard Republican-> New laws to limit voting rights and more gerrymandering You can argue that one side needs to stop tone policing all you want, but the reality is that candidates are losing in states they used to win because the people who were voting for them aren't allowed to vote anymore. [edit] Most people who vote aren't listening to most liberals or whoever in their day-to-day conversations about this stuff anyway.
- eropple 10y ago
  > When Suzy soccer mom says she wants some stricter vetting for refugees I don't disagree with most of your post--but in the land of the real, it is very difficult to say that vetting for refugees in the United States is not already an intensely strict process. The people asserting it's not are self-described nationalists who wish to stop immigration...or are sourcing what they're saying from them. That's where the meme (in the original sense of the word, not the 4chan sense of it) comes from. Your hypothetical soccer mom is getting this from dog-whistle sources because she listens to them and can hear the frequency. In today's political climate, that is basically a lost cause. The epistemic closure is real; you're not clawing that person back. (Some of them--myself included, years back--will eventually find their way out. But you gotta want it and nothing anybody outside the bubble does or says will make it happen.) It's not a fight to turn people, and to be honest I don't think throwing good money after bad makes sense. (I advise ignoring these people entirely, not trying to argue with them or teach them because you don't have the hooks into that person that the news sources they choose to pay attention to do. Instead, it's a fight to turn our people out. And I'd agree that picking on randoms doesn't help turnout. But one thing I'd caution about is that what you're saying is very frequently extended to everybody not merely randos. "That literal fascist is a literal fascist, he checks all the 'what is a fascist?' boxes and he's down with Richard Spencer" still needs to be said. Though I'll decry my liberal forebears' willingness to use the word to mis-describe earlier generations of Republicans. Because we are in a real bad place and the literal fascists are actually at the gates. And in the White House. (The deeper concern, and that's why it's a turnout fight, is gerrymandering by overwhelmingly right-wing/Republican/there's-not-really-a-difference-anymore groups in order to crack and pack those who don't vote for them. But that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish...)
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    > I don't disagree with most of your post--but in the land of the real, it is very difficult to say that vetting for refugees in the United States is not already an intensely strict process. Agreed. > The people asserting it's not are self-described nationalists who wish to stop immigration...or are sourcing what they're saying from them. Here I disagree. A big chunk of it is people who think that nothing bad should ever happen, and if any refugee ever does anything bad, that proves that refugees are not adequately vetted, and we have to do something. They may then listen to the self-described nationalists, but that's not where they start. And it seems to me that writing off all the people who disagree with you is not a winning strategy. (A whining strategy, perhaps, but that's not the same thing...) You're going to have to persuade them, or you're going to have to live with them (and their votes). And you don't like the consequences of their votes. > Because we are in a real bad place and the literal fascists are actually at the gates. And in the White House. Yup. At least as advisors. (I'm not willing to place Trump himself in that literal category, at least not yet.)
- intoverflow2 10y ago
  >The over use of "Bigot", "Racist", "Nazi", etc completely devalue the words. They take away their power. 10 years ago nobody wanted to be called a Nazi but now people laugh it off. That's dangerous. We want to be be afraid of being called a racist. We want to discourage it. Baffled me to watch Americans stumble into the exact same mistake the Brexit Remain campaign did. Calling people nazis and racists for having what they believe are moderate opinions does not make them sit back and re-evaluate it instead just solidifies their stance and they begin to shrug off being called racist.
dotnetisnotdead 10y ago
Also, when I see the media going crazy over Kellyanne putting her feet on the couch to take a picture, I can definitely see one of the biggest factors in how we've lost our way.

dotnetisnotdead 10y ago

I relate to this 100%. I'm a lifelong Democrat, but in the last 2 years the culture has changed so drastically, I am being pushed to the center. I'm not alone in this, and it's bad for democrats. They don't realize it just yet. The over use of "Bigot", "Racist", "Nazi", etc completely devalue the words. They take away their power. 10 years ago nobody wanted to be called a Nazi but now people laugh it off. That's dangerous. We want to be be afraid of being called a racist. We want to discourage it. When Suzy soccer mom says she wants some stricter vetting for refugees she's not the same as Billy Bob sitting in his cabin planning out the burning of black churches. But the left has gone full throttle in that direction. They take the easy path of calling someone a name rather than defend their position, even if it's perfectly defensible. These loud voices are drowning out the moderate, reasonable people on the left, and pushing them away. This is a bad long term strategy.

nikdaheratik 10y ago
IMO, it's not what the left is doing that's the problem, though I'm not a fan of it. The problem boils down to: The repeal of campaign finance-> Lots of state legislatures going hard Republican-> New laws to limit voting rights and more gerrymandering You can argue that one side needs to stop tone policing all you want, but the reality is that candidates are losing in states they used to win because the people who were voting for them aren't allowed to vote anymore. [edit] Most people who vote aren't listening to most liberals or whoever in their day-to-day conversations about this stuff anyway.
eropple 10y ago
> When Suzy soccer mom says she wants some stricter vetting for refugees I don't disagree with most of your post--but in the land of the real, it is very difficult to say that vetting for refugees in the United States is not already an intensely strict process. The people asserting it's not are self-described nationalists who wish to stop immigration...or are sourcing what they're saying from them. That's where the meme (in the original sense of the word, not the 4chan sense of it) comes from. Your hypothetical soccer mom is getting this from dog-whistle sources because she listens to them and can hear the frequency. In today's political climate, that is basically a lost cause. The epistemic closure is real; you're not clawing that person back. (Some of them--myself included, years back--will eventually find their way out. But you gotta want it and nothing anybody outside the bubble does or says will make it happen.) It's not a fight to turn people, and to be honest I don't think throwing good money after bad makes sense. (I advise ignoring these people entirely, not trying to argue with them or teach them because you don't have the hooks into that person that the news sources they choose to pay attention to do. Instead, it's a fight to turn our people out. And I'd agree that picking on randoms doesn't help turnout. But one thing I'd caution about is that what you're saying is very frequently extended to everybody not merely randos. "That literal fascist is a literal fascist, he checks all the 'what is a fascist?' boxes and he's down with Richard Spencer" still needs to be said. Though I'll decry my liberal forebears' willingness to use the word to mis-describe earlier generations of Republicans. Because we are in a real bad place and the literal fascists are actually at the gates. And in the White House. (The deeper concern, and that's why it's a turnout fight, is gerrymandering by overwhelmingly right-wing/Republican/there's-not-really-a-difference-anymore groups in order to crack and pack those who don't vote for them. But that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish...)
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  > I don't disagree with most of your post--but in the land of the real, it is very difficult to say that vetting for refugees in the United States is not already an intensely strict process. Agreed. > The people asserting it's not are self-described nationalists who wish to stop immigration...or are sourcing what they're saying from them. Here I disagree. A big chunk of it is people who think that nothing bad should ever happen, and if any refugee ever does anything bad, that proves that refugees are not adequately vetted, and we have to do something. They may then listen to the self-described nationalists, but that's not where they start. And it seems to me that writing off all the people who disagree with you is not a winning strategy. (A whining strategy, perhaps, but that's not the same thing...) You're going to have to persuade them, or you're going to have to live with them (and their votes). And you don't like the consequences of their votes. > Because we are in a real bad place and the literal fascists are actually at the gates. And in the White House. Yup. At least as advisors. (I'm not willing to place Trump himself in that literal category, at least not yet.)
intoverflow2 10y ago
>The over use of "Bigot", "Racist", "Nazi", etc completely devalue the words. They take away their power. 10 years ago nobody wanted to be called a Nazi but now people laugh it off. That's dangerous. We want to be be afraid of being called a racist. We want to discourage it. Baffled me to watch Americans stumble into the exact same mistake the Brexit Remain campaign did. Calling people nazis and racists for having what they believe are moderate opinions does not make them sit back and re-evaluate it instead just solidifies their stance and they begin to shrug off being called racist.

dotnetisnotdead 10y ago

Also, when I see the media going crazy over Kellyanne putting her feet on the couch to take a picture, I can definitely see one of the biggest factors in how we've lost our way.