Go into comedy, dude. "Why did people watch JK at Malibu? They were hungry for a little surfin' terf."
Many liberals conceded the point that Rush Limbaugh had some effective comedy writers, who were his most-effective at sliding his points home *with the opposition*. Liberals were joining in on the jokes about internet-inventing Al Gore and rich John Kerry.
PS: the Rowling joke, I just made up, and do not warrant it as funny.
That's such a good point about Limbaugh crossing the aisle with comedy. Having listened to *a lot* of Limbaugh for The Flamethrowers, I genuinely started to enjoy the show.
Of course you can disagree. But as I think we've also seen, they can be incredibly persuasive. And simply ignoring them тАФ and their motivations тАФ means shirking the responsibility to deal with that growing appeal.
Well what does "deal" mean. Does getting into a heated argument where you beat them over the head with your superior morals and scientific process make them more or less likely to pursue these superior morals and research? If the answer is 'less,' as this science suggests, then are you not just performing?
There's a lot going on here. But a few weeks ago I wrote a bit about the state of the Queer community in Weimar Berlin. I think you can point to a particular moment, just before Hitler assumed total control, when the Weimar elites opted go emulate Hitler and go after Queer people, *particularly because Hitler's rhetoric had been so compelling.* It was a capitulation. A belief that they had aggressively fought Hitler's rhetoric and failed. So they tried coopting it.
I'm never going to argue that everyone needs a seat at the table. We need to have established rules of engagement. The question is where we draw the lines. No Nazis, agreed. Do we also shun everyone who is curious about what those Nazis have to say? Do we excommunicate every TERF? Every climate denier?
Hitler (depending on which elections you count) never won a majority of the vote. He won by weaponizing a minority that felt like they were being ignored and lectured to. How would you have engaged with that ~30% of Germans?
Also, sorry, the idea that "no one took the Nazis very seriously" in the Weimar Republic is a ln objectively incorrect statement. Nearly the entire conservative/liberal/left of the country was seized with how to prevent their rise to power. They failed.
Go into comedy, dude. "Why did people watch JK at Malibu? They were hungry for a little surfin' terf."
Many liberals conceded the point that Rush Limbaugh had some effective comedy writers, who were his most-effective at sliding his points home *with the opposition*. Liberals were joining in on the jokes about internet-inventing Al Gore and rich John Kerry.
PS: the Rowling joke, I just made up, and do not warrant it as funny.
That's such a good point about Limbaugh crossing the aisle with comedy. Having listened to *a lot* of Limbaugh for The Flamethrowers, I genuinely started to enjoy the show.
Of course you can disagree. But as I think we've also seen, they can be incredibly persuasive. And simply ignoring them тАФ and their motivations тАФ means shirking the responsibility to deal with that growing appeal.
Well what does "deal" mean. Does getting into a heated argument where you beat them over the head with your superior morals and scientific process make them more or less likely to pursue these superior morals and research? If the answer is 'less,' as this science suggests, then are you not just performing?
There's a lot going on here. But a few weeks ago I wrote a bit about the state of the Queer community in Weimar Berlin. I think you can point to a particular moment, just before Hitler assumed total control, when the Weimar elites opted go emulate Hitler and go after Queer people, *particularly because Hitler's rhetoric had been so compelling.* It was a capitulation. A belief that they had aggressively fought Hitler's rhetoric and failed. So they tried coopting it.
I'm never going to argue that everyone needs a seat at the table. We need to have established rules of engagement. The question is where we draw the lines. No Nazis, agreed. Do we also shun everyone who is curious about what those Nazis have to say? Do we excommunicate every TERF? Every climate denier?
Hitler (depending on which elections you count) never won a majority of the vote. He won by weaponizing a minority that felt like they were being ignored and lectured to. How would you have engaged with that ~30% of Germans?
Also, sorry, the idea that "no one took the Nazis very seriously" in the Weimar Republic is a ln objectively incorrect statement. Nearly the entire conservative/liberal/left of the country was seized with how to prevent their rise to power. They failed.