Snowflakes. Groomers. Cucks.

For years the MAGA movement has approached politics the way a bully would approach a schoolyard, sparring with labels so nasty, they seemed expressly chosen to appeal to the kind of people who stuffed nerds in lockers in sixth grade. And for years Democrats, abiding by the mantra to go high, not low, have responded by trying to be the adults in the room: defending themselves with facts, with context, with earnest explanations that nobody remembers (if they defend themselves at all).

The problem is that taking the high road only works if politics is a sport played mainly by people who act like grown-ups, which it is not. And also: Facts and context don’t make for particularly sticky messaging.

Enter: Weird.

Over the past two weeks, as “Brat” and coconut memes have taken over the internet and Kamala Harris inches closer to Donald Trump in the polls, the Democrats have finally gone low, deploying a bit of verbal jujitsu so delightfully petty it might just work.

  • Lightscription
    link
    4
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Name calling like that should work well with the youth vote. Smart. Politics is just a shit throwing contest. The other side will probably follow suit with terms that fit the demonized adjectives popular among the demographics of their base.

    Contrary to the prevailing view that youth are rebellious, they always obey the patriarchy behind the scenes, the merchants of “the cool” dictating the popular image to them. Pretty hard to get milage out of calling a non-white woman creepy or weird. On the other hand, it is kind of a reflexive acceptance when those negative predicates are applied to any male over 20. Agreed. I think dicks of any age are weird and gross myself.

    But will their POLICIES improve our lives?

    • Lightscription
      link
      11 month ago

      People say a lot of really mean things to people. Sometimes it is primal and cuts to the core. But then they return with a how dare or act like the enmity is only one way. Strange. There should be more rational dialogue and less personal invective. I wonder why people like to focus on the ad hominem because I find the actual game plans (analysis and practice) more interesting. Why did we all get so caught up in identity? Rather than hiding behind identity, we should lead by revealing with positive action.