If you don't have any on the use of violence, I would add one. There have been a bunch of posts recently about interactions with liberals claiming to stand against violence in any capacity (we all know deep down they don't). But getting them to think about that could be good. If you maybe don't want to go too overt, a simple prodding with the paradox of intolerance might be good.
Fucking liberals and violence. If you hit someone with a meat cleaver, regardless of context, it's horrific and unacceptable violence, and they'll dispatch armed agents of the state to kill you or put you in a box. Blow up a medicine factory in Sudan? That's just a big whoopsy, it's certainly not "violence", it certainly doesn't occasion condemnation or harsh language, or god forbid punishment. idfk. Their violence is always neutral and natural and inevitable, but anything that seeks to change the status quo, whether it's lighting a bin on fire or shooting a nazi or even just yelling at a politician, regardless of whether it causes harm, is outrageous and unacceptable, unconscious able, unforgivable violence meriting the dispatch of state killers and kidnappers who will pursue you through time and space to punish you severely for any transgression. It makes you feel insane to see this while surrounded by sleepwalkers.
The framing of the test is that it separately ranks you on a conservative framing, a liberal one, and a leftist one. There's not actually any room on any of those axes for violence. I'm considering making it also spit out which framing you're likely to think in, in which case I'm totally using violence and/or gun control to identify libs.
Paradox of intolerance is certainly something interesting to add, thanks for the suggestion!
If you don't have any on the use of violence, I would add one. There have been a bunch of posts recently about interactions with liberals claiming to stand against violence in any capacity (we all know deep down they don't). But getting them to think about that could be good. If you maybe don't want to go too overt, a simple prodding with the paradox of intolerance might be good.
Fucking liberals and violence. If you hit someone with a meat cleaver, regardless of context, it's horrific and unacceptable violence, and they'll dispatch armed agents of the state to kill you or put you in a box. Blow up a medicine factory in Sudan? That's just a big whoopsy, it's certainly not "violence", it certainly doesn't occasion condemnation or harsh language, or god forbid punishment. idfk. Their violence is always neutral and natural and inevitable, but anything that seeks to change the status quo, whether it's lighting a bin on fire or shooting a nazi or even just yelling at a politician, regardless of whether it causes harm, is outrageous and unacceptable, unconscious able, unforgivable violence meriting the dispatch of state killers and kidnappers who will pursue you through time and space to punish you severely for any transgression. It makes you feel insane to see this while surrounded by sleepwalkers.
The framing of the test is that it separately ranks you on a conservative framing, a liberal one, and a leftist one. There's not actually any room on any of those axes for violence. I'm considering making it also spit out which framing you're likely to think in, in which case I'm totally using violence and/or gun control to identify libs.
Paradox of intolerance is certainly something interesting to add, thanks for the suggestion!