Cheerleading violence is an aesthetic for almost everyone who engages in it. While it has appeal -- everyone can get behind violence if you give them the right reason -- it can also backfire hard if you read the room even slightly wrong. It's easily taken out of context and can quickly become a liability, even when it initially gets you something.
We'll clown on this, we'll clown on how bloodthirsty Israeli officials sound when they say they're fighting "human animals" in Gaza, but we'll rarely apply those criticisms to ourselves.
This is what she was going for: https://www.texastribune.org/2010/04/27/rick-perry-shoots-coyote/
But she missed the mark a little, so now even her supporters are going . Had she just included the part about shooting the goat it probably would have played well to her base. If she said the dog was sick it probably would have been fine. If it was someone else's dog attacking her, maybe. If she made the exact same comment 10 years ago or 10 years from now maybe it comes off differently, too.
I'm saying that while this seems obvious in hindsight, the line between acceptable and unacceptable violence is shifting and not always easy to place. It's all aesthetics anyway, so why not pick a more sober approach to violence that anticipates these issues?
Oh gotcha. I do think there's something different between making overtures at violence and actually doing some yourself (even if it's only symbolic). Rare to see real blowback just for rhetoric. And the left is actually somewhat cautious about real violence - for instance most serious discussion of "adventurism".
Cheerleading violence is an aesthetic for almost everyone who engages in it. While it has appeal -- everyone can get behind violence if you give them the right reason -- it can also backfire hard if you read the room even slightly wrong. It's easily taken out of context and can quickly become a liability, even when it initially gets you something.
We'll clown on this, we'll clown on how bloodthirsty Israeli officials sound when they say they're fighting "human animals" in Gaza, but we'll rarely apply those criticisms to ourselves.
i guess but I feel like "I shot my puppy on a whim" is different than general cheerleading for political violence
This is what she was going for: https://www.texastribune.org/2010/04/27/rick-perry-shoots-coyote/
But she missed the mark a little, so now even her supporters are going
. Had she just included the part about shooting the goat it probably would have played well to her base. If she said the dog was sick it probably would have been fine. If it was someone else's dog attacking her, maybe. If she made the exact same comment 10 years ago or 10 years from now maybe it comes off differently, too.
I'm saying that while this seems obvious in hindsight, the line between acceptable and unacceptable violence is shifting and not always easy to place. It's all aesthetics anyway, so why not pick a more sober approach to violence that anticipates these issues?
Oh gotcha. I do think there's something different between making overtures at violence and actually doing some yourself (even if it's only symbolic). Rare to see real blowback just for rhetoric. And the left is actually somewhat cautious about real violence - for instance most serious discussion of "adventurism".