4 ms·

I mean, both liberals and conservatives have some viewpoints that I don't agree with, and that's OK. Where I draw the line is the whole "I didn't lose, it's fra

I mean, both liberals and conservatives have some viewpoints that I don't agree with, and that's OK. Where I draw the line is the whole "I didn't lose, it's fraud!" thing that is gaining popularity. Everyone has to agree on the rules of the game, otherwise you're not going to be asked to play.

graderjs 4y ago
This is the same type of language the same type of tactic but more pernicious cuz it's more sophisticated it's like: "look I'm a reasonable person, okay yeah you know everyone's got different viewpoints some of my friends are liberals some of my friends are conservative see me I've got credibility I don't prejudice but hey now listen to me here"... once I build up The credibility, then land the message, "the real thing you should care about" is boom, and now you're going to mislabel a mischaracterize some situation and say look that's the real issue. Sure if that's actually the case I mean if that's the situation "oh okay I didn't lose its fraud." If that's what it actually is then sure why should why should that be popular? But how do you know that's the case how are you sure? Like it's a great stick to beat Trump with right? it's like "Trump lost, the results say so and look I mean come on now we can see he's a crazy nut job and everyone is supported him is too" hey that makes me on the other side feel like I'm so f*** right. Oh and I'm sad for my country to give me credibility as well. But it's like how do you know that's the case how do you know it's fraud? Because if it is fraud then who you going to trust to do the investigation and publicize it? Because if you can pull a fraud on that scale then who you going to trust to reveal that? And anyway I don't see the danger in having that discussion it seems like you know a democracy should constantly interrogate the integrity of its own procedures so these kind of questions like "is everything ship shape" I think that's normal. And there's actually nothing wrong with that the problem is, like I was saying in another comment, is like so you take something reasonable: well we want to make sure the elections are actually fair make sure there's no problems there and then so we take that reasonable thing and then we totally mislabel it and misrepresent it because we editorialize one other tiny part that coincided: and that's f*** dangerous. So now the question of integrity of elections is basically become taboo because the media did such a good job of spinning the January 6th protests as completely represented and reduced to the acts of some vandals and the spectacle of the occupying of the Capitol building. I mean what if there was a problem with election integrity? what if there was a f*** racket and what if Trump et Al, and some republicans were legitimately trying to bring that to light and reform that right I mean... what if that's the case? Then the people running that racket, if it exists, have just played the whole thing so well I mean they had this great opportunity in the occupation of the capital where they could just completely spin the entire question of election integrity as, "oh my God you have to be like a anti-government anarchist like qAnon shaman crazy conspiracy theorist to even consider this." I mean if you really are running a racket on the elections and you don't want people to find out that's the perfect play for you to just a paint any dissent to what you want people to believe as f*** crazy. So what I think is sad is how homogeneous the discourse has become and how afraid of different viewpoints to the extent that you know these types of mislabeling and demonization is now completely commonplace that people are using them on each other like regular folk are using it in casual conversation to be like oh so you know you support this idea well you must be this other thing which is a false equivalence and it's basically this sort of great stabilizing factor for the status quo that we never have to consider any dissenting viewpoints to that because we've already labeled all those possible paths as f*** crazy. I feel sad that people don't actually see this as a scary situation.

graderjs 4y ago

This is the same type of language the same type of tactic but more pernicious cuz it's more sophisticated it's like: "look I'm a reasonable person, okay yeah you know everyone's got different viewpoints some of my friends are liberals some of my friends are conservative see me I've got credibility I don't prejudice but hey now listen to me here"... once I build up The credibility, then land the message, "the real thing you should care about" is boom, and now you're going to mislabel a mischaracterize some situation and say look that's the real issue. Sure if that's actually the case I mean if that's the situation "oh okay I didn't lose its fraud." If that's what it actually is then sure why should why should that be popular? But how do you know that's the case how are you sure? Like it's a great stick to beat Trump with right? it's like "Trump lost, the results say so and look I mean come on now we can see he's a crazy nut job and everyone is supported him is too" hey that makes me on the other side feel like I'm so f*** right. Oh and I'm sad for my country to give me credibility as well. But it's like how do you know that's the case how do you know it's fraud? Because if it is fraud then who you going to trust to do the investigation and publicize it? Because if you can pull a fraud on that scale then who you going to trust to reveal that? And anyway I don't see the danger in having that discussion it seems like you know a democracy should constantly interrogate the integrity of its own procedures so these kind of questions like "is everything ship shape" I think that's normal. And there's actually nothing wrong with that the problem is, like I was saying in another comment, is like so you take something reasonable: well we want to make sure the elections are actually fair make sure there's no problems there and then so we take that reasonable thing and then we totally mislabel it and misrepresent it because we editorialize one other tiny part that coincided: and that's f*** dangerous. So now the question of integrity of elections is basically become taboo because the media did such a good job of spinning the January 6th protests as completely represented and reduced to the acts of some vandals and the spectacle of the occupying of the Capitol building. I mean what if there was a problem with election integrity? what if there was a f*** racket and what if Trump et Al, and some republicans were legitimately trying to bring that to light and reform that right I mean... what if that's the case? Then the people running that racket, if it exists, have just played the whole thing so well I mean they had this great opportunity in the occupation of the capital where they could just completely spin the entire question of election integrity as, "oh my God you have to be like a anti-government anarchist like qAnon shaman crazy conspiracy theorist to even consider this." I mean if you really are running a racket on the elections and you don't want people to find out that's the perfect play for you to just a paint any dissent to what you want people to believe as f*** crazy. So what I think is sad is how homogeneous the discourse has become and how afraid of different viewpoints to the extent that you know these types of mislabeling and demonization is now completely commonplace that people are using them on each other like regular folk are using it in casual conversation to be like oh so you know you support this idea well you must be this other thing which is a false equivalence and it's basically this sort of great stabilizing factor for the status quo that we never have to consider any dissenting viewpoints to that because we've already labeled all those possible paths as f*** crazy. I feel sad that people don't actually see this as a scary situation.