Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Rob Filter
Jan 19, 2009
Whenever someone in a political space argues for a fact or philosophy that has no direct ties to electoral politics, its reasonable to assume their going to smuggle in some kind of directly electoral argument alongside it, usually an argument that is too outside the space's overton window to get screentime. e.g. I've seen people argue for "incrementalism" when what they actually want to argue is opposing measures to abolish poverty.

I did not expect that "Elites lean democrat" to be smuggling in racist BLM conspiracy theories couched behind weasel words and hypotheticals - my first guess was lowering the minimum wage. Is this the usual argument hiding alongside "THE ELITES!", or does the right just use "THE ELITES!" to argue any old reactionary thing?

edit:

toterunner posted:

Corporations seemed to unanimously come out in favor of the Black lives Matter movement (snip). They've also come out against Trump's election claims, republican voting rights legislation, and republican legislation on LGBT issues.
NVM I think the OP has already answered my question - its just any old reactionary thing.

Also I laughed at the bolded, that's hands down the most disingenuous way I've ever heard anyone say "voter suppression." Usually its "voting security" or "voting integrity" or something, but just the outright reversal here has some big "right to work" rhetorical energy.

Rob Filter fucked around with this message at 06:55 on Apr 29, 2022

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Rob Filter
Jan 19, 2009

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:

in fairness, THE ELITES can be used to argue for pretty much everything except a few flavors of technocracy. the existence of powerful people who don't have your best interests at heart is pretty uncontroversial across the political spectrum at the moment, and the term THE ELITES is vague enough to always encompass everyone who opposes you, while not including anyone who supports you.

as an example, THE ELITES are what killed Build Back Better, THE ELITES are what brought the Supreme Court to 6/3, THE ELITES are what ruined the NFL catch rules, and THE ELITES are the reason America has given up on trying to fight coronavirus. none of that is a wrong statement, but it's also nowhere near useful.
That's a really interesting point! "THE ELITES" as synonym for "People with power over you", with who exactly has power left as a vague exercise for the reader. Meaning that each person viewing your argument can come to their own separate-perhaps-contradictory version of who "THE ELITES" are.

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:

THE ELITES are what ruined the NFL catch rules
That line made me laugh out loud.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply