I definitely get that this could hypothetically be used by the right wing mediasphere (and likely may. They’re always at the bottom of the barrel, scraping away).
My point is…have they? It just seems weird to me to be up in arms over something we think they might do as it sounds like something they would do.
There is PLENTY of shit they’re already doing that deserves our attention. Like, this is a weird trend I’ve been seeing lately. People photoshopping insane right wing bumper stickers or creating…well…“fake news” and then getting up in arms over it. Like. What. We have so much to worry about. Worrying about stuff that isn’t happening is…fuckin dumb. It almost, like, takes attention away from and dulls the impact of the shit they’re actually doing. It just doesn’t make sense.
You need to stop giving regressives the benefit of the doubt. They will couch their rhetoric in as much plausible deniability as you’re willing to extend them, exactly so that you’ll go into the comments and carry water for them.
You and I both know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this will be prime fodder for AM talk radio, pulpits, and other bastions of the culture war. They are out there right now saying, “This is sad, but the boy [sic] was confused and was groomed by society.” Framing it as grooming, dead naming, etc. is all a way for them to muddy the waters and poison the well. If it isn’t blood libel, it’s a single step away. Here’s one example, I am sure you can find more if you look: https://twitter.com/Jermont_II
But my point was the entire conversation before you brought up an example was “I bet this’ll happen.” Which, yeah, it’s probably not wrong—as evidenced by your proof—but it changes the entire complexion of the conversation when we’re just assuming things will happen and getting upset at the assumption.
There is nuance in my point, but what I’m saying is knocking down that burden of proof because it’s probably going to happen anyway is bad. “I bet this is gonna happen…I HATE THAT THIS IS PROBABLY HAPPENING SONEWHERE!!” is very different from someone bringing an occasion of this happening to the conversation so we can discuss how it’s fucked up that it’s happening.
It’s just different. It is. Riling people up with zero evidence and strictly on assumptions is bad. Even if we are pretty sure it’s going to be fodder for idiots. It’s a short hop to accepting stuff without evidence because it feels right…i mean, that’s already exactly what it is, but take away the likelihood and suddenly we’re dealing with a very different situation. It’s a dangerous, nuanced game, is my point.
I definitely get that this could hypothetically be used by the right wing mediasphere (and likely may. They’re always at the bottom of the barrel, scraping away).
My point is…have they? It just seems weird to me to be up in arms over something we think they might do as it sounds like something they would do.
There is PLENTY of shit they’re already doing that deserves our attention. Like, this is a weird trend I’ve been seeing lately. People photoshopping insane right wing bumper stickers or creating…well…“fake news” and then getting up in arms over it. Like. What. We have so much to worry about. Worrying about stuff that isn’t happening is…fuckin dumb. It almost, like, takes attention away from and dulls the impact of the shit they’re actually doing. It just doesn’t make sense.
You need to stop giving regressives the benefit of the doubt. They will couch their rhetoric in as much plausible deniability as you’re willing to extend them, exactly so that you’ll go into the comments and carry water for them.
You and I both know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this will be prime fodder for AM talk radio, pulpits, and other bastions of the culture war. They are out there right now saying, “This is sad, but the boy [sic] was confused and was groomed by society.” Framing it as grooming, dead naming, etc. is all a way for them to muddy the waters and poison the well. If it isn’t blood libel, it’s a single step away. Here’s one example, I am sure you can find more if you look: https://twitter.com/Jermont_II
But my point was the entire conversation before you brought up an example was “I bet this’ll happen.” Which, yeah, it’s probably not wrong—as evidenced by your proof—but it changes the entire complexion of the conversation when we’re just assuming things will happen and getting upset at the assumption.
There is nuance in my point, but what I’m saying is knocking down that burden of proof because it’s probably going to happen anyway is bad. “I bet this is gonna happen…I HATE THAT THIS IS PROBABLY HAPPENING SONEWHERE!!” is very different from someone bringing an occasion of this happening to the conversation so we can discuss how it’s fucked up that it’s happening.
It’s just different. It is. Riling people up with zero evidence and strictly on assumptions is bad. Even if we are pretty sure it’s going to be fodder for idiots. It’s a short hop to accepting stuff without evidence because it feels right…i mean, that’s already exactly what it is, but take away the likelihood and suddenly we’re dealing with a very different situation. It’s a dangerous, nuanced game, is my point.