• Plopp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    4 months ago

    Indeed. However, republicans know they’re full of shit, it’s a tactic they use. Intellectual dishonesty and bad faith arguments. And their voters know it too because they’re the same.

      • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Peter Shamshiri from the podcast 5-4 demonstrates how this is done in their patreon only episode Your Questions: Jury Nullification, Law School Reform, and More

        I wish I could post the clip because it’s so well done and so cathartic but here’s the transcript:

        0:46:19.2 Peter: “My question is, why don’t you ever invite guests on who disagree with you? If your arguments are strong, there is no downside. Plus it would be nice to hear how you react to others of goodwill who don’t see things how you do. Just a thought.” Well, the question I would have for this listener is why the fuck would we ever do that [laughter]?

        0:46:40.0 Rhiannon: The downside is I have to hear a conservative talking on my fucking podcast.

        0:46:45.4 Peter: The downside is the podcast would suck ass first of all, [laughter] Okay. We’re a podcast about critiquing Supreme Court decisions. If you want to hear the other side, just read the fucking opinions. That’s the other side. That is the purported smartest people in America trying to do the other side.

        0:47:03.1 Rhiannon: Exactly. Clarence Thomas has the platform. Fox News has the platform. We’re doing our own thing over here.

        0:47:09.1 Peter: Fucking read the VALA Conspiracy or whatever you feel like doing.

        0:47:12.4 Rhiannon: Exactly.

        0:47:12.9 Peter: Plenty of people have written about like the conservative fetishization of like debate. The implication here is that by debating with some conservatives, we’d all somehow arrive closer to the truth. Right? Despite the fact that there’s like endless research showing that that’s just not true and not how debate works. And my strong hunch is that this dude is not writing into National Review or whatever pervert publications he reads requesting that they give space to opposing views. It’s just something you want left-leaning media to do so that you can hear your fucking freak friends in their ill-fitting suits describe their arguments to our faces directly.

        0:47:51.8 Rhiannon: Exactly.

        0:47:53.4 Peter: Turning our podcast where we speak openly from a left perspective about the law into some bullshit New York Times debate nonsense that no one wants to hear and would end our careers as podcasters.

        0:48:07.9 Rhiannon: That’s great.

        0:48:10.4 Peter: So my strong suggestion to this listener is for you to shut the fuck up and suck my dick.

      • Plopp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        4 months ago

        I love what you write, and I agree. Or rather, I want to agree.

        We need to dispel the myth that playing dirty and arguing BS has no consequences. It has severe consequences, as the bad-faith actor loses credibility, respect, dignity and their seat at the table.

        But like… Maybe I’m misinterpreting what you mean, but I’m sitting here thinking that apparently it has no consequences. Trump hasn’t gotten in any trouble for the absolute shitload of things he’s done and said over a period of at least 9 years (not to mention everything before that), and he’s still for some inexplicable reason eligible to run for president and thus have a very big seat at the biggest table there is, and is polling well for some reason. I see no reason to believe there will ever be consequences if there has been none thus far. But I really hope I’m wrong.

          • Plopp@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            Thank you for writing all that. I (and I’m sure others) needed to hear it in these dark times. I’m sure there are counter arguments to at least some of it, but I’m not going to concern myself with that and instead focus on the good parts. Here’s for a better future. 🍻

      • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        At the end of the day, the goal still needs to be to get politics “back” to being a cordial affair. I agree that you can’t just take shit without responding but you also need off ramps.

        • almar_quigley@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Was it ever really a cordial affair? I feel like it naught be worse today but saying it was cordial feels like some rose tinted glasses.

    • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      their voters know it too because they’re the same.

      their rich voters know it, i agree. but if the majority of GOP voters who are rural broke uneducated bumpkins can believe trump is “chosen by god” and only vote for guns, jesus, and gEtRiDoFtHeGaYs, then they can absolutely genuinely believe all the bullshit they’re being fed

      edit: perfect example https://youtu.be/-TQo2D4RtDY