3 ms·

> But it’s the fact that he opposes the sneering, snotty Calling people "Crooked Hillary", "Sleepy Joe", and Gavin "Newscum" isn't sneering and snotty?

by deeg 11mo ago

Ancapistani 11mo ago
That’s literally his appeal. Perceptually, he’s the first person to run on the Republican ticket that shot back. More realistically, he’s a caricature of the way the right feels the media and political class treat them. Obviously there is some gap between perception and reality - but those same groups reacted so strongly to him that they became a caricature of themselves. He’s popular on the right because he’s so unpopular on the left.
- happytoexplain 11mo ago
  >he’s the first person to run on the Republican ticket that shot back It's hard to believe anybody believes this. I understand both sides always feel like the other side is always "worse" by essentially any metric, but first? The first Republican candidate to mock democrats or be shitty? You mean the most extreme, surely. Also, "shot back" implies something comparable. Again - I don't really believe anybody thinks what Trump culture does is comparable to what either Republicans or Democrats have done to each other for decades. If you mean it asymmetrically - as in the president "shooting back" not at the other presidents, but at the media and constituency of the opposite party, then in that context it makes even less sense. It was always the case that the media and online shitposters waged petty war against each other, while the presidents made rare jokes that were more diplomatic (on average...). It was always a gradient going up the chain - the people at the bottom saying the worst things, then the media in second place, then elected officials, then the president. But Republicans were always varyingly more extreme at all levels of that hierarchy. There was never a layer where the Democrats were shit-talking the Republicans in a way that the Republicans didn't match or exceed. So it doesn't make semantic sense to say that Trump "shot back" - what Trump did was pull the worst of those bottom bits straight up into the presidency, and all layers in between. The Democrats are "shooting back" by reactively getting more shit-talky at higher levels. Of course, that's not the right thing to do, but it's understandable, and they still don't come anywhere near Trumpism, qualitatively or quantitatively.
  - Ancapistani 11mo ago
    This is my point, though - and to be clear, I’m not saying I agree with the position, only that it is my understanding. This truly does seem to be the general perception based on my observations.

> But it’s the fact that he opposes the sneering, snotty Calling people "Crooked Hillary", "Sleepy Joe", and Gavin "Newscum" isn't sneering and snotty?

by deeg 11mo ago

> But it’s the fact that he opposes the sneering, snotty Calling people "Crooked Hillary", "Sleepy Joe", and Gavin "Newscum" isn't sneering and snotty?

Ancapistani 11mo ago

That’s literally his appeal. Perceptually, he’s the first person to run on the Republican ticket that shot back. More realistically, he’s a caricature of the way the right feels the media and political class treat them. Obviously there is some gap between perception and reality - but those same groups reacted so strongly to him that they became a caricature of themselves. He’s popular on the right because he’s so unpopular on the left.

happytoexplain 11mo ago
>he’s the first person to run on the Republican ticket that shot back It's hard to believe anybody believes this. I understand both sides always feel like the other side is always "worse" by essentially any metric, but first? The first Republican candidate to mock democrats or be shitty? You mean the most extreme, surely. Also, "shot back" implies something comparable. Again - I don't really believe anybody thinks what Trump culture does is comparable to what either Republicans or Democrats have done to each other for decades. If you mean it asymmetrically - as in the president "shooting back" not at the other presidents, but at the media and constituency of the opposite party, then in that context it makes even less sense. It was always the case that the media and online shitposters waged petty war against each other, while the presidents made rare jokes that were more diplomatic (on average...). It was always a gradient going up the chain - the people at the bottom saying the worst things, then the media in second place, then elected officials, then the president. But Republicans were always varyingly more extreme at all levels of that hierarchy. There was never a layer where the Democrats were shit-talking the Republicans in a way that the Republicans didn't match or exceed. So it doesn't make semantic sense to say that Trump "shot back" - what Trump did was pull the worst of those bottom bits straight up into the presidency, and all layers in between. The Democrats are "shooting back" by reactively getting more shit-talky at higher levels. Of course, that's not the right thing to do, but it's understandable, and they still don't come anywhere near Trumpism, qualitatively or quantitatively.
- Ancapistani 11mo ago
  This is my point, though - and to be clear, I’m not saying I agree with the position, only that it is my understanding. This truly does seem to be the general perception based on my observations.