politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
You are stating the literal hypocrisy and saying it isn't hypocrisy. I have no idea what nuance you are saying is there.
Pointing out hypocrisy is actually fairly effective with uninformed people. If they have only a passing interest in JD couch molester, but are made aware of his anti-trans/drag legislation at the same time they find out he was cool doing it himself, they will be likely to not believe his bullshit in the future. No, it won't swing his base who are already on the cognitive dissonance express, but it might help motivate someone on the fence to get out and vote against him.
The 'rules for thee but not for me' kind of hypocrisy is extremely important.
I think there's just a disagreement with your core premise.
There is a subset of people that are not engaged and unaware of Vance's legislative history or public statements regarding drag. Those people will generally not engage with long thoughtful nuanced discourse. Those are the people that pointing out hypocrisy speaks to. An article or long post just doesn't work. A quick meme does. It's a simple cognitive shortcut to get them engaged, and it's effective. Yes, I get a bit of masturbatory joy when I see that stuff, but it shouldn't be meant for me. This stuff is meant to go "viral" so it gets in front of the non-engaged eyeballs.
We need to use every single goddamn tool in the toolbox we have to engage people and get them to turn out. All of it. Including pointing out hypocrisy.
Fair enough on the terminology.
So attacking their obsession is okay, but taking it one step further and explaining that they're not only obsessed but hypocritical somehow makes it out of bounds?
I am truly trying to understand your point, and I think others have too, but it simply isn't there. Can you just specifically say what you would like to see written when communicating this information to someone? What specifically do you want said about JD Vance when someone posts this photo? I think that might help.
It was a question, trying to understand what the hell you're trying to say. Don't really think it's fair to call that "wildly mischaracterized" but you do you.
Happy to move on. You should really work on communicating your thoughts though. You're not making any sense and wasting a bunch of people's time who are trying to engage with you in good faith, and then getting combative when it's pointed out. We can't see eye to eye while you're facing the other direction.