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.
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.
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.
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.
Is there a good term for this paper-thin weaponization of identity to left-punch? I sed it a lot, including irl.
Concern trolling
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.
you dont have to be insincere to troll
Where do I learn this power
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.
Virtue signaling, interestingly enough.
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.
IdPol-based liberal recuperation.
"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.
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.