[ SECRET POST #6007 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6007 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.
























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 43 secrets from Secret Submission Post #859.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

That is because a lot of progressives or Left-wingers are crypto-fascists in the end.

[(Anonymous)]

Now that was a bad faith argument, so thanks for demonstrating one for us!

[(Anonymous)]

It was not!

[(Anonymous)]

DA

I think you're referring to the Horseshoe Theory?

"In popular discourse,[1] the horseshoe theory asserts that the extreme left and the extreme right, rather than being at opposite and opposing ends of a linear political continuum, closely resemble each other, analogous to the way that the opposite ends of a horseshoe are close together."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

Basically, the more someone thinks the other side is The Absolute Worst, the more they feel justified in using objectively shitty tactics to oppose them. And edge closer to The Absolute Worst themselves.

[(Anonymous)]

Good summary of something I'm tired of seeing.

[(Anonymous)]

Nah, I think theirs was just a bad argument, rooted in black-or-white thinking.

[(Anonymous)]

Mm. Very poor choice of words. But I'll admit that I miss the days when the right went around blithely claiming that everyone was as blindly dogmatic as they were ... and it was demonstraby untrue. Because unlike them, leftists didn't tend to interpret disagreement as disloyalty. They saw it as proof that the world was complex and worthy of more curiosity and more exploration. And that's part of what made me feel like we had values in common. Whereas, these days? Use the wrong word or express the wrong thought and you're a heretic. It's just the name-calling that varies a little.

[(Anonymous)]

And not only a heretic, but some sort of un-person who is an acceptable target for any amount of abuse and cruelty.

[(Anonymous)]

Exactly.

[(Anonymous)]

You ever notice that the people who make the "I miss when we could disagree about things without taking it as an attack" argument are never talking about things like whether we should focus transportation funding on expanding public transportation or replacing existing infrastructure? They're always talking about civil rights and who does and does not deserve them. It's funny how that works.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

I sometimes see this attitude from people who regularly discuss infrastructure issues. Strong Towns Instagram is a good starting point for this (along with urbanist YouTube).

[(Anonymous)]

Nah. We've always had arguments on the left about issues that people felt very strongly about, and existentially threatened about whether it would go their way or not. You tip your hand when you say civil rights, because all of this went back and forth and was up in the air when people were hammering out what the democrats would support and oppose in relation to blacks, and women, and gays, and every minority that tried to establish a place in the sun before "trans rights" came along.

All of them coped with being challenged. And the groups that we remember as having won recognition and legal protection are just a fraction of the groups that tried. The process of testing claims is part of how society assesses whether the demands it gets are frivolous, or whether one group is expecting accomodations that would come at the expense of a previous group ... or whether it's actually worth taking seriously.

Incels believe themselves to be an unfairly excluded sexual minority too, and in a lot of ways their claims seem no less extreme or absurd to everyone who isn't one.

[(Anonymous)]

Weirdly enough, I have a hypothesis that a large swath of people online are deathly afraid of disagreement. So it's easier to just reject someone who has values which don't align with their own, rather than have a thoughtful and empathetic discussion about it.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm sure there are plenty of people online who don't want to spend their social time arguing. For all sorts of reasons. But there's a broad range of ways to signal that fighting isn't fun for them, and most people with tact just get the point and go with it.

I'm a lot more tired of people who don't seem to have arguments that withstand dispassionate examination, and try to cover up for the lack by claiming that all the people who disagree with them are enemies of humanity and child-killers.