this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2024
68 points (98.6% liked)

electoralism

22015 readers
43 users here now

Welcome to c/electoralism! politics isn't just about voting or running for office, but this community is.

Please read the Chapo Code of Conduct and remember...we're all comrades here.

Shitposting in other comms please!

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Theories

  1. Its literally just because Hillary Clinton sucks so hard and people didnt want to hear that shit from her
  2. Deplorables is too much of a vocabulary word, weird is a word everyone knows. So deplorable just comes off more elitist, from a woman who is already seen that way. To quote a friend I asked "I think deplorable has a negative connotation that speaks to core personhood, in a way that comes off as both mean spirited and elitist"
  3. The GOP hadnt gotten unhinged enough yet, so America wasnt ready for a campaign that is dismissive of them and still expected bipartisan respect and shit, but are now because the "weird" shit is so out there all the time
  4. "Weird" is simply a more effective word to describe the situation at hand
  5. Deplorables would have worked fine with the young people who can vote now but couldnt in 2008.
  6. Kamala and especially Walz are better representations of "not weird" than Hillary was a representation of "not deplorable".
  7. "Weird" hits them harder, insults them worse, and thus makes them spiral more in a way deplorable didnt
  8. Deplorable would have worked fine if it wasnt just a one off comment but a sustained campaign message (this one im thinking probably not)
  9. The Vance effect, he's just that weird.
  10. People who are tired of Democrats being respectful like weird a lot
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago

The big thing for me is that weird is a morally neutral word, but it can be used in this context to create a moral judgement. Basically, you can claim something is factually weird, but then the audience gets to interpolate the moral value out of it. Requiring audience participation in the moral judgement allows people to feel included in making that moral judgement, and on the other side, you then have to try to either contest if what you are doing is 'wierd' or if 'weird' is not a morally bad thing, something that Republicans can't do because they consider themselves 'normal', even though they are objectively weird people (as most politicians are).

It's a good rhetorical play, but it is becoming cringe imo.