|
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. 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 |
# ¿ Apr 29, 2022 06:42 |
|
|
# ¿ May 9, 2024 19:47 |
|
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. Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:THE ELITES are what ruined the NFL catch rules
|
# ¿ Apr 29, 2022 07:19 |