Jump to content

Edit History

Deep Dive Devin

Deep Dive Devin

You're missing my point. Kerdios said that the US right has become "impossible to discuss with". This isn't literally true, yes, but nobody who says it means it that way. Obviously people can talk to each other, but you shouldn't be surprised that people rarely agree to the caveat of "just agree to their framing of politics and treat their opinions as more legitimate than they are".

 

What I am saying is that there hasn't been a significant change in position that made this divide larger, just a more toxic attitude that's harder for moderates to ignore. My example of how they obfuscated this before was to bring up which political euphemisms they've historically covered their asses with. The things they actually want have not changed that much.

 

Yes, the Muslim registry thing was a real promise Trump made, though it was early in his presidency and obviously didn't come to pass.

 

I admit "destroy the middle class" is exaggerated. Both of this country's parties are corporate-controlled, neither of them have working class interests in mind (it was Clinton who dealt the biggest blow to welfare, after all), but it does not take a genius to look at "lower taxes" being implemented as "rich people paying less taxes for social programs that benefit non-rich people" and see that that was always the point.

 

It's not unfounded to say these things, though. I honestly don't know what to think if you're just going to tell me the concept of political euphemism has completely passed you by.

 

Like, when Republicans say "gay marriage should be decided on by individual states", they say it because they know many states would never legalize it on their own, but there's not a lot of political viability in trying to ban it nationwide (currently). This is how they approach abortion, how they previously approached segregation, et cetera. If you're honestly telling me that they'd still believe in "states' rights" to decide these things when the conservative position was federally-mandated, that's extremely naive.

 

If you want to cite good reasons to believe not every euphemism is sound or wholly accurate to what people say it means, I guess we can have that discussion, but I'm not interested in being told I don't know what I'm talking about because I don't simply take people who constantly lie about things at their own word.

Deep Dive Devin

Deep Dive Devin

Kerdios said that the US right has become "impossible to discuss with". What I am saying is that there hasn't been a significant change in position, just a more toxic attitude that's harder for moderates to ignore. My example of how they obfuscated this before was to bring up which political euphemisms they've historically covered their asses with. The things they actually want have not changed that much.

 

Yes, the Muslim registry thing was a real promise Trump made, though it was early in his presidency and obviously didn't come to pass.

 

I admit "destroy the middle class" is exaggerated. Both of this country's parties are corporate-controlled, neither of them have working class interests in mind (it was Clinton who dealt the biggest blow to welfare, after all), but it does not take a genius to look at "lower taxes" being implemented as "rich people paying less taxes for social programs that benefit non-rich people" and see that that was always the point.

 

It's not unfounded to say these things, though. I honestly don't know what to think if you're just going to tell me the concept of political euphemism has completely passed you by.

 

Like, when Republicans say "gay marriage should be decided on by individual states", they say it because they know many states would never legalize it on their own, but there's not a lot of political viability in trying to ban it nationwide (currently). This is how they approach abortion, how they previously approached segregation, et cetera. If you're honestly telling me that they'd still believe in "states' rights" to decide these things when the conservative position was federally-mandated, that's extremely naive.

 

If you want to cite good reasons to believe not every euphemism is sound or wholly accurate to what people say it means, I guess we can have that discussion, but I'm not interested in being told I don't know what I'm talking about because I don't simply take people who constantly lie about things at their own word.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 101 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...

This website uses cookies, as do most websites since the 90s. By using this site, you consent to cookies. We have to say this or we get in trouble. Learn more.