• be_excellent_to_each_other
    link
    fedilink
    51 year ago

    So much for attacking their ideas when you can just attack them for being them, I guess.

    Did you have some particular disagreement with the content of the article?

    • @chakan2
      link
      English
      21 year ago

      The man gives off strong incel energy

      Johnson is trash, there’s no disputing that.

      However, in a sea of character flaws, the best the author can come up with is “incel energy” it’s a severe lack of talent on the author’s part. That speaks to the quality of Salon’s “writing.”

      • be_excellent_to_each_other
        link
        fedilink
        81 year ago

        Well OK but,

        • He backs up his claim with linked citations
        • He doesn’t ignore, but rather acknowledges many of the other things that are bad about the guy, and backs those up with linked citations too.

        And, he ties it all together at the end:

        There are still many in the punditry who are confused about why Christian conservatives like Johnson glommed onto Trump, a thrice-married chronic adulterer who touches the Bible like it will burn him. But, of course, it was never really about Jesus. What Trump and the men who worship him share is anger that any woman would have the right to say no: To a date, to a marriage, to having your baby. It’s why Trump has a long history of sexual assault. And it’s why men like Johnson embrace a “religion” that is hyper-focused on caging women like they’re farm animals. And why they resent gay people for their perceived sexual adventures.

        So I don’t know if it’s the “best” the author could come up with so much as what he chose to write about, but it seems like a reasonably coherent piece to me.

        In any case though, your comment at least gave a concrete thing you disliked, so fair point! 🙂 The comment I replied to on the other hand…

        I’m not a particular Salon fanboy, but we’re in a sub about politics so I expect to see some opinion pieces about politics.