You don’t know me at all lol You have no idea my struggles in life and why I dislike Trump and Biden. So, your self righteous, egoist tone is of no use to me.
There is a really stupid television advert that runs in my market, for some website to curate the news. It features this old white guy who doesn't seem to know much, and this young black woman without a clue; they both need someone to tell them what to pay attention to.
There is also, in the time of pandemic, a hand sanitizer spot that reminds me of an old comedy bit out of Britain. Apparently, people are unable to put their fingers in between one another unless they have foam. The old comedy bit was for plastic cups, because people couldn't figure out how to drink milk out of the container. Like the jokes about Ben Elton, the idea that British people don't already have cups and glasses in their homes means something particular to the British; in the U.S., the idea that people can't get sanitizer gel between their fingers simply means Americans are just that effing stupid.
But I do have a question: Part of what sets people off is when others around them start behaving like an internet axiom. I've seen this before, and I never know quite what to think of it. But why do people strike middling yet consequential postures from pretenses of ignorance? It's not like weird rhetorical habits are limited to one range of the politic, or something, but there is a form that reads like someone has suddenly gone test-market, and it does, actually, often follow general trends.
So it's true, the idea of a "not a Trump supporter" who just happens to be the perfect Trump consumer isn't new, but it really is a head scratcher. I mean, let's go through it in order:
Generic polymer equivocation↑,
unsupported expectations↑,
lack of understanding↑,
something about Russia↑,
incomprehnsible nonsense↑,
pretense of indignance↑,
presumptuous nonsense↑, and that's just the first page. Shall we continue? Oh, hey, look at that,
you got around↑ to
thinking of↑ what would have forestalled the entire discussion leading to, for instance, your pretense of indignance. But at least you managed to
clear that up↑, before
opposing Democrats↑. There's something that reads like a
personal note↑; honestly, I'm just trying to not skip anything. But, yeah, you might have spared yourself
pretenses of indignance↑ by getting around to the obvious at the outset. And, you know, sure, lots of people are tired of rich, white, sexist men getting elected, but you
don't seem to understand↑ the critique against Biden. As to de Maistre,
you're looking at it wrongly↑; the switch back to individuals—("don't all agree")—is what causes your confusion. Then there is the matter of what looks like a
straw man combined with an accusation of lying↑. And some
insubstantial complaining↑ about Biden. Something about
breaking away↑ from the two-party system;
a question↑ that reads like a weird televison advert for a curated news website. We can pass over the decision to lead with declaring that you are
not a Trump supporter↑, and, yeah, we get that you "don't think Biden is the 'solution,' though", and it's a really weird, fallacious pitch. But, also, the part where you complain, "You seem to pride yourself on putting me down for whatever your reason", is weirdly on mark for the way you've gone about this; it seems part of the package when arguing from a posture of ignorance. But inasmuch as you're "not sure why [someone would] feel the need to position me here as a Trump supporter", it would be more accurate to say it's not unheard of to describe oneself as "not a trump supporter", but spend efforts complaining about Trump's opposition. Even the bit about wearying of the exchange pretty standard fare. Still, if you are worried that someone
infers↑ your Trump support, the effort you spend to complain about Biden according to bizarre contexts and insinuations does stand out. And, sure, you
don't really need to prove anything↑ to anyone, but you really did just hit your marks for some sort of performance.
So, please, as a Poe's Law question ...― well, that's the point, isn't it.
Because did he really say
you have↑, "no knowledge of what's going on in our government"? That kind of self-inflicted escalation isn't unfamiliar.
And please understand, you just keep piling up the examples. If,
for instance↗, "It doesn't seem that Republicans and Democrats want to fix the problems that exist, together," such that, "There is this endless struggle for power," it does occur to ask why the equivocation always overlooks what it takes in order to "fix the problems that exist, together". When you ask, "Republicans and Democrats can't even agree on
science?" do you really think it's a bothsides problem? Of course, with the
arbiter of truth↑ post, you continue blazing oft-tread trails.
It doesn't even need to be "Trump supporter". Whatever routine you think you're playing, the question remains when you will break form.
Also, of
equivocations↑, look, getting into it with the goes around looking for a fight isn't quite the same thing. Still, though, such is forum life, and you continue to hit your marks.
So by the time you get back to,
"Nothing you've presented"↑, well, that, too, is as well and fine as it is familiar.
†
Anecdote in re generic pitches: So, this dude, just this guy I know, and for whatever reason he acts like he thinks he's fooling someone. It's like, speaking of polymer, there was the time he tried explaining his politics, and it read like a twenty-five year old pitch from a "not a Republican" explaining why he votes for Republicans: He's center-left, a bit more liberal on social issues, but conservative on fiscal issues. But this guy also once said something about us liberals sticking together, or something. And not long ago, he tried describing himself as a leftist. Thing is, when he stops evading and actually says what's on his mind, his dialect is anything but. Some of it is rightist-libertarian, and some runs antisocial nearly to type. Oh, right, and he's gone trumpfan on me, twice. Still, he keeps pretending.
†
My question, then, is:
Why?
Honestly, it's one of the puzzling things of the time. I think of a particular right-winger who for the longest time trolled to type, and, sure, I get it compared to his time and place. But I really don't understand what people think pretense of asking
tabula rasa questions accomplishes.
It's a superficial pretense of neutrality, but beneath the freshly-molded, shiny, plastic sheen is an empty structure specifically designed to hold particular shape. When we attend the
function of what a question proposes, it's uncertain what period of history we might illuminate in order to help you understand, for instance, why DoJ's attempt to undo Flynn's plea is so important; it is uncertain how to answer your polymer equivocations. What you need to understand about being a "closet Republican", as you put it, is that's actually pretty normal. Go look up Blue Dogs; there's a reason Congressional Democrats never had a prominent, influential Red Dog leftist caucus. Then go look at Minnesota and Michigan in primaries, both '16 and '20, and remember the excuses people gave about why not Clinton, in hopes of warding off suggestions of sexism; those voters broke even more institutional, asked for an even bigger dose of what they said they were saying no to. Democratic voters had Elizabeth Warren to get behind, and plenty of others. But the Party's centrism, and the more conservative blocs that demand it, fell back to Biden in order to ward off Sanders.
When you're down to, you don't think Biden can, what, stop actively fomenting supremacism? or, not violently clear the square for a photo op with the Bible? it's true, people doubt the pretense of neutrality. What Democratic voters are getting is a familiar package promising restabilization. Where Biden can't mollify the hardline right, nobody can.
It's not that there aren't still problems with a technocratic Biden administration tablescrapping progressivism, but we can have that discussion when we can have that discussion.
Nor is there is only one version of,
I don't support the one but must oppose the other; it's just that this one is really, really familiar, yet utterly puzzling for being so apparent.
