Is there a good term for this paper-thin weaponization of identity to left-punch? I sed it a lot, including irl.
Hmm but what if they're serious, just... deeply propagandized?
I usually encounter it in a defensive context where they aren't trolling so much as trying to rationalize their liberalism.
just go to any local political group meeting where they discuss public works and listen
take notes
I think trolling implies insincerity, but you get the same result if you honestly believe that shit so what's the difference? We've seen similar stuff on here with people who might be trolls or might just be (for example) sincere, five-true-leftists-in-the-world ultras.
Maybe this all falls under wrecking.
Hmm but what if they're serious, just... deeply propagandized?
I usually encounter it in a defensive context where they aren't trolling so much as trying to rationalize their liberalism.
The "trransit purists" are a straw man. She's isrepresentating transit advocacy so it's much easier to argue against. A straw man argument can be used in good faith.
This person is just making up an argument that they can be on the good, correct, moral side of.
:100-com:
I guess my hairsplitting is that I know how to describe knowing bullshitting, but am not sure how to describe the "honest" bullshitting of this type, where they might not be aware of it. That might be too generous for this persin, but I definitely run into it irl. People genuinely struggling to handle cognitive dissonance and latching on to arguments that resonate with their sense of social justice. Still an excuse to avoid the dissonance, but also kind of... universal.
Is there a good term for this paper-thin weaponization of identity to left-punch? I sed it a lot, including irl.
"E-L-O-N's Neuralink(tm)(r) may conceivably help disabled people in the future, so if you don't like what it is now, by extension you don't like disabled people." :very-intelligent:
Bootlicking is the best word I can think of to sum the ideology up, even if it isn't precisely about the specific tactic you mentioned.
Okay yes I do think of them as bootlickers ha. But I don't know if thay quite describes this particular form of it
I wouldn't usually plug Hasan on here but he has a good episode on Pod Save America where he talks about this. He seems to have a pretty good understanding of it. I'm not sure of the term for it but it's sort of a form of online narcissism - most of the time the people who say these things don't actually need to say them because in the event of these scenarios they would have special access needs met. Like with some of the factory picket lines there were people saying umm but I literally need this food because of their allergy policies or something - obviously this person needs to break the picket line but they don't need to announce that they do. It's preying on the emotional/compassionate nature of the left to make it about them. Or something like that. Hasan explains it better. He has a good explanation of online 'cancel culture' too.
people saying umm but I literally need this food because of their allergy policies or something - obviously this person needs to break the picket line
Often there are alternatives anyway and their reasoning is the same as everyone's else "it inconveniences me and I don't like it" but just played up as being a necessity instead.
You see that with food delivery arguments a lot "Uh I'm disabled so I need to spend on doordash because I can't go shopping", but grocery delivery is also a thing and you can get it for like 5-10 bucks, infinitely cheaper than any restaurant delivery.
In actuality th reasons behind the argument then are actually the same as anyone else "I'd rather have doordash than a frozen meal in the microwave" or "I'd rather eat product A that fits my allergies than Product B that fits my allergies", they're just trying to fall back on something soon as more acceptable.
Also, love that it's a fellow westerner complaining about "transit purists" when a large part of impending climate disaster is predicated off our society that has been overusing cars for at least half a century, and the third world will be the ones that will have to pay for it first
Ah yes, public transit, famously an awful alternative to cars, which famously never put pollutants into the air that negatively affect the health of people with respiratory illnesses:matt-jokerfied:
When you're so used to public options being inefficient and underfunded that you can't imagine them any other way.
i am disabled and cannot drive
if there is a wildfire coming towards my home and i am alone i will have no choice but to just die lol, thanks.
please stop using disabled people as a mouth piece without consulting them ever
Liberals don't use marginalized group as a cudgel to enforce reactionary ideology challenge: impossible
presumably she is disabled. i think the problem with standpoint epistemology as applied to disability activism is that there is no single experience of disability, that being disabled by definition means having experiences and needs that aren't widely shared.
Fair, and I'm not trying to talk to all disabled people when I talk about my own issues either. But I think if you're using your own disability to actively preach making life worse for other disabled people uhhh maybe don't
Yeah but here's a question for the :galaxy-brain: in the chat:
If we had had a more robust public transit network, would there be wildfires? :thonk:
There'd be more, public transit will be designed around kooky doodads I made in the new Zelda game, which function by shooting bomb arrows at the grass.
No, I will ban fire. Prometheus was wrong, mankind cannot be trusted. :anprim-pat:
Yes, but less than if we continue to build a car-centric infrastructure for the next 50 or whatever years across the world.
Wait outside for public escape vehicles??
Yes, it's called a bus. They are often used to move large amounts of people in emergencies. :soviet-chad:
Happening right now downriver of that dam in Ukraine, this lady could not be farther of the mark
i mean obviously when there's a natural disaster and a city needs to be evacuated, the most efficient way to do it has historically been every adult in the city getting into their own automobile and heading to the same highway.
Like in Ukraine during the start of the war. It was a clusterfuck with lots of cars clogging the border crossings with scenes like tanks driving over parked ones, but busses were very instrumental in managing the movement of refugees.
I did talk with someone who studied and worked in catastrophe response (like is part of a team of first/second responders that will be air lifted to areas without electricity/communication network etc.).
They were pretty clear that people walking, followed by public transportation are the main things to get people out of dense areas. Then organized response of getting people out and only then came cars and other things (think helicopters). They did also mentioned boats at some point but I don't remember exactly anymore.
That cars and roads especially during crisis are often not the solution, but create problems if you want to get people out. However they are good in giving felt controlled spaces and are good in transporting things and slightly shielding you from the weather up to a point.
"I am perfectly fine with making owning and driving a car a requirement for existence, anything else is eugenics! And to all the people asking about the poor, blind, elderly, etc. I mean things are bad, SOME sacrifices will be unavoidable."
it's all emergencies for many of us
This line caught my eye, it's right but not for the reason they think. The system has been intentionally set up so that a plurality of people are constantly rushing from one emergency to another and never having the space to breathe - public transit, as well as basically all of the other public services that a modern government should provide for its people, would reduce the number of emergencies that everyone has to deal with all of the fucking time.
:aaaa: how is this person real just think a little deeper about the root causes of these problems mfs really exist with absolutely no thought about material conditions how is this even real
They literally point it out right at the end she just handwave it away.
Also these people seem to assume that transit advocates just want transit as it is and not transit that massively expanded, developed, and made to be as accessible as possible for every segment of the population.
The long wait times for a bus are because of cars you moron!
I HATE VIBES BASED PLANNING. DO SOME READING GODDAMMIT.
It's Twitter, the instrument to give a megaphone to the village fool. And the more outrageous the take, the more outcry there is and the more traffic the site gets, so :stonks-up:
I'm glad these weirdos exist. If only to prove some sort of point about concern trolling.
