Trump 2, Women 0

@vivify said
That's a statement that lacks nuance.

Questioning was fine. The problem is that the people questioning them tended to be conspiracy theorist promoting unsafe and unscientific ideas.

Examine the people doing the questioning:

How many of them were scientists? Very few, if any, correct?
How many of them were conspiracy theorists? Quite of a lot, correct?

Mo ...[text shortened]... licly deny that Covid was a threat.

This was the context around those who questioned lockdowns.

Okay, look. I'm not going to re-open the Covid can of worms again right now. Suffice it to say that (which you'll recall if you were on social media in those days), the Left during covid were extremely contemptuous and disrespectful of anyone or any idea that varied even slightly from the "follow the science" Orthodoxy.

Yes, some of them were conspiracy theorist nut jobs but most were not. Most were just concerned about whether it was really necessary to close schools or smart to force 3 year olds into masks. And anyone who expressed any of those sentiments were lambasted by the militant "follow the Science" crowd. And it made many normal people (including some liberals, like Nate Silver) extremely angry.

@Suzianne said
And yet, because of the precautions, far less people (esp. elderly) died as a result of covid.

But people didn't give a damn about that. All they could think about was someone was telling them what to do. And that stuck in their craw and they couldn't get over it.

===But people didn't give a damn about that. All they could think about was someone was telling them what to do. And that stuck in their craw and they couldn't get over it.===

Thanks for providing the perfect example of the rhetoric that made people angry.

Edit: This is exactly the sort of thing that anyone who expressed any hesitancy about lockdowns or school closures or mask mandates or vaccine mandates faced reams of, all over social media.

@sh76 said
Yes, some of them were conspiracy theorist nut jobs but most were not. Most were just concerned about whether it was really necessary to close schools or smart to force 3 year olds into masks. And anyone who expressed any of those sentiments were lambasted by the militant "follow the Science" crowd. And it made many normal people (including some liberals, like Nate Silver) extremely angry.

I get that. I'm just saying that context is needed to understand why. The reactions from liberals didn't come out of nowhere.

I'm sure there was legitimate opposition from thoughtful people. You were one of them.

Think of how you sometimes react to anti-Israel posts where you wonder if antisemitism is involved. Based on your experience, bigotry against Jews drives opinions regarding Israel, right? So when someone does come along who just wants to questions the Israeli government, part of you still can't help but wonder if antisemitism is involved, right?

Same goes for who questioned Covid policies, because of people like Metal Brain.

Still, it paints a false picture of Dems being the only ones who "cancel" people. What about Target stores being attacked by angry right-wingers over trans support? People went into stores and caused damage to items. Or what about Ihan Omar or anyone who opposes Israeli occupation: are you going to tell me there's no backlash? What about those university presidents who lost their jobs: isn't that right-wingers cancelling people?

I don't understand how Dems gained this reputation of intolerance people when Republicans do this constantly. Trump has called for news stations to be shut down for negative reporting about him; yet it's only Dems?

@vivify said
I get that. I'm just saying that context is needed to understand why. The reactions from liberals didn't come out of nowhere.

I'm sure there was legitimate opposition from thoughtful people. You were one of them.

Think of how you sometimes react to anti-Israel posts where you wonder if antisemitism is involved. Based on your experience, bigotry against Jews drive ...[text shortened]... p has called for news stations to be shut down for negative reporting about him; yet it's only Dems?

Left wingers are far more nasty and quick to try to cancel on social media than right wingers. I'm not talking about University Presidents and the like. I'm talking about common people.

I once responded to a Tweet by one of the covid alarmist doctors on pre-Musk Twitter (maybe it was EFD, I don't remember) saying quite calmly and matter of factly that I really didn't think the covid infection fatality rate was 1%. Possibly I misused anecdotal evidence a bit in my post, but it was quite a reasonable and Milquetoast post, I assure you.

The original poster chose to respond to me (and did so in a slightly deriding but generally mild way), so that drew attention to my post. OMG! I got like 20 put-down memes and an equal number of "you right wingers don't care of Grandma dies" and similar shouts at me.

The right just doesn't do that. I've also posted on right wingers' posts explaining that there's no evidence that Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin help treat covid or that vaccines saved lives in 2021 and I never got anywhere near that kind of vitriolic backlash. Arguments? Sure. But gangtackling by the mob? No.

When you post against the right, the responses you usually get are "you're wrong" or "don't believe the media." When you post against the Left, you get "you're a science-denying conspiracy theorist nut job."

If you do spend a lot of time on social media, then tell me I'm wrong.

@sh76 said
Left wingers are far more nasty and quick to try to cancel on social media than right wingers. I'm not talking about University Presidents and the like. I'm talking about common people.

I once responded to a Tweet by one of the covid alarmist doctors on pre-Musk Twitter (maybe it was EFD, I don't remember) saying quite calmly and matter of factly that I really didn't think th ...[text shortened]... spiracy theorist nut job."

If you do spend a lot of time on social media, then tell me I'm wrong.

I think you're wrong AND you're a science-denying conspiracy theorist nut job.

So what does that make me. Not wrong, that's for damn sure.

😆

PS. Don't believe the media.

@sh76 said
Left wingers are far more nasty and quick to try to cancel on social media than right wingers. I'm not talking about University Presidents and the like. I'm talking about common people.

I once responded to a Tweet by one of the covid alarmist doctors on pre-Musk Twitter (maybe it was EFD, I don't remember) saying quite calmly and matter of factly that I really didn't think th ...[text shortened]... spiracy theorist nut job."

If you do spend a lot of time on social media, then tell me I'm wrong.

Target received threats for supporting trans people. Right-wingers harassed employees who work there as if it's their fault. Jan 6th; bombed abortion clinics; protesters assaulted at Trump rallies; and on and on.

Outside of the internet, it's right-wingers who are the dangerous freaks.

If you don't experience backlash from conservatives it's because most of your viewpoints align with them. Remember when you told me that Israel needs to learn to negotiate with Hamas not too long ago? Try saying that on a conservative website, then come back and tell me how open-minded they are.

@vivify said
Target received threats for supporting trans people. Right-wingers harassed employees who work there as if it's their fault. Jan 6th; bombed abortion clinics; protesters assaulted at Trump rallies; and on and on.

Outside of the internet, it's right-wingers who are the dangerous freaks.

If you don't experience backlash from conservatives it's because most of your vi ...[text shortened]... go? Try saying that on a conservative website, then come back and tell me how open-minded they are.

===If you don't experience backlash from conservatives it's because most of your viewpoints align with them. Remember when you told me that Israel needs to learn to negotiate with Hamas not too long ago? Try saying that on a conservative website, then come back and tell me how open-minded they are.===

I have.

They tell me I'm naive for thinking you can negotiate with people who want to kill you, and the like. But plaster me like the lockdown left did? No.

@sh76 said
I have.

They tell me I'm naive for thinking you can negotiate with people who want to kill you, and the like. But plaster me like the lockdown left did? No.

I think it's mostly because of the abundance of Metal Brains on your side. Without knowing you personally, it's easy to assume you're one of them due to how vocal and numerous the anti-Covid conspiracy nuts are.

Either way, you're not entirely wrong. Duchess was arguably the most left-leaning poster in RHP history and an unpleasant monster. Anything less than total agreement was a slight worthy of personal attack. It's the same with the trans community.

You're not wrong about the left. But you're wrong if you think the right isn't just as guilty of it. There's no president in history more guilty of it than Trump. I'm sure even you could agree with that.

Lo and behold, Nate Silver commented on this very issue in his post this morning.

Even though our forecast was near 50/50 for almost the whole race, there were certainly periods that were relatively better and worse for Harris and Trump. Our narrative content followed accordingly, with about an even mix of newsletters that presented optimistic cases for Harris and Trump. (That was not true when Joe Biden was running, but that’s because Biden was way behind in the polls.) So I essentially got to perform a randomized control trial on how partisans in both camps reacted to good and bad news.

And there was an asymmetry. Republicans are generally happy when you agree with them partway or half the time. Admittedly, the sorts of Republicans who encounter our work are not a representative sample, probably being on the moderate side — though you can find plenty of Trump supporters in the Silver Bulletin comments section.

Democrats, however — and here, I’m not referring so much to Silver Bulletin subscribers but in the broader universe online — often get angry with you when you only halfway agree with them. And I really think this difference in personality profiles tells you a little something about why Trump won: Trump was happy to take on all comers, whereas with Democrats, disagreement on any hot-button topic (say, COVID school closures or Biden’s age) will have you cast out as a heretic. That’s not a good way to build a majority, and now Democrats no longer have one.

https://www.natesilver.net/p/the-model-exactly-predicted-the-most#footnote-4-151345713

@sh76 said
Lo and behold, Nate Silver commented on this very issue in his post this morning.

Even though our forecast was near 50/50 for almost the whole race, there were certainly periods that were relatively better and worse for Harris and Trump. Our narrative content followed accordingly, with about an even mix of newsletters that presented optimistic cases for Harris and Trum ...[text shortened]... e.

https://www.natesilver.net/p/the-model-exactly-predicted-the-most#footnote-4-151345713

Trump happy to take all comers is some of the most ridiculous BS Nate ever posted. There is zero room for dissent in MAGA World.

@Suzianne said
And yet if it were your son doing the spiking, you'd think it was fantastic.

we are losing sue. sedatives will do that to you.

@sh76 said

I have.

They tell me I'm naive for thinking you can negotiate with people who want to kill you, and the like. But plaster me like the lockdown left did? No.

Want to comment on Bud Lite and the reaction to Dylan Mulvaney by people on the right?

@sh76 said
Left wingers are far more nasty and quick to try to cancel on social media than right wingers. I'm not talking about University Presidents and the like. I'm talking about common people.

I once responded to a Tweet by one of the covid alarmist doctors on pre-Musk Twitter (maybe it was EFD, I don't remember) saying quite calmly and matter of factly that I really didn't think th ...[text shortened]... ght wingers don't care of Grandma dies" and similar shouts at me.

The right just doesn't do that.

Your comments are about COVID and the language that evolved out of that.

But given your claim that the right doesn't do that, which seems to be thrown around a lot, care to comment about how Trump's descent into vulgarity and coarseness to attack Harris, turned out to be a very successful strategy that opened up the gates for a sustained campaign by his minions, to attack the player, by echoing the most vile denigration of her person, and the right by the overwhelming silence on the matter, was largely okay with this.

When you're calling your opponent a 's@#t' Vice President and using that language at the Alfred Newman Charity dinner and people start calling her out as a prostitute at the MSG rally, and she is slanderously characterised as giving blowjobs to establish her career, and it's not hard to see how this visceral attack on her gender plays into misogynistic tropes that allowed males on mass to gang up on Harris.

Trump allowed the 'truth' of Kamala to be spoken that was echoed and amplified by Musk in his gutter characterization of Harris on X.

Explain how this misogyny directed at Harris had nothing to do with the male support Trump gained in this election? Explain how the right said nothing about the rape of Harris's reputation which was the one strategy that definitely helped Trump get over the line.

@kmax87 said
Your comments are about COVID and the language that evolved out of that.

But given your claim that the right doesn't do that, which seems to be thrown around a lot, care to comment about how Trump's descent into vulgarity and coarseness to attack Harris, turned out to be a very successful strategy that opened up the gates for a sustained campaign by his minions, to attack ...[text shortened]... pe of Harris's reputation which was the one strategy that definitely helped Trump get over the line.

Vulgarity and coarseness are beside the point. Of course Trump is vulgar. Of course he's coarse. Of course he's borderline nuts. But you don't have to agree with the right on every issue for the right to accept you into the camp. You can be pro-choice. You can be in favor of raising taxes, of increasing entitlements, of same sex marriage. It doesn't really matter that much. The Trump camp will accept you as long as you don't go after Trump himself. RFK, Gabbard and Rogan are all lifelong liberals. Pro-vax, anti-vax. It doesn't really matter. On the contrary, Trump himself has held both sides of most of these issues are one point or another. Being nuts and vicious is not the same thing as requiring 100% acceptance of the Orthodoxy.

On the other hand, if you have the audacity to say that men shouldn't play in women's sports or that affirmative action is not good policy or that masking children was a dumb idea, you can't get into the Leftist camp. You're hateful, misogynist racist bigot. All it takes is one "bad" position and you're persona non grata.

For what other possible reason did Latinos turn against the Dems all of a sudden? They're sick of the White Ivory Tower elite class wagging their fingers at anyone who holds any one of half a dozen positions that many of them probably hold.

@kmax87 said
Want to comment on Bud Lite and the reaction to Dylan Mulvaney by people on the right?

Sure; it was a stupid overreaction (though an equally dumb decision by Budweiser).

That has very little relationship to the point we're discussing.