What people were implying was basically "Jones is not legitimate because he is evil". To which I responded by pointing out that the legitimacy of an AG is not tied to his non-evilness.
Trivially, you did so by throwing out irrelevant implications of antisemitism, conspiracy theory, qanon-ish schizophrenia, so on. It's not necessary for your claim, it's not supported by any of your evidence or by the motivations of your interlocutors, and it's bait, and I'm grabbing it and yanking. Either make the arguments in full, or don't bother.
And I'm pointing out that there's more information pointing to his legitimacy. He did not just joke or 'joke' about killing his political opponents. He 'joked' or joked about the innocent children of his political opponents getting murdered because he believed it would achieve a political goal. This is not a minor distinction, not does it exist outside of the realm of his elected workplace. And no one on the Blue Side of the aisle has bent over backwards to concede Trump (or Bush, or Youngkin, or Abbot, or yada yada) out of a deep alignment to small-d democratic supremacy.
(though the "little fascists" comes close, but then again the Republicans might not be the ones to cast the first stone wrt dehumanizing language).
I don't particularly care about who cast the first stone, but I would like to hear you spell out within a five-year-block when you think calling normal Republicans fascists became common discourse among the left-wing. Or, when that inevitably needs a thousand caveats, to say when it was first used to dehumanizing Red Tribe normies.
You make it sound like they were praising his statements about Gilbert.
Would you like to demonstrate what Jay Jones has done, otherwise? Because if all it takes to "demonstrated" "character, compassion, and vision" is to xerox DNC pablum, and then to normalize violence, you're just saying the same thing with extra steps.
Again, what did you expect to happen? That they would announce that they were all going to vote for the Republican candidate out of disgust?
I hoped that they'd pressure the man to resign -- a nearly costless or even beneficial option, when Spanberger would appoint his replacement, who coincidentally would not also have to dodge serious questions about fraud on a court to get past his punishment for driving recklessly. That's not happening.
I expected they'd do exactly what they did. I considered it a joke that'd they do anything else, that's how predictable this end result was. It doesn't matter. I couldn't even get the people who wrote thousands of lines and drew thick lines in the sand here, to write in secret their opposition. It's not even new, but no one cares.
Behold, the grownups in the room.
We know it's possible for people to turn on politicians, even at far greater expense, and with far less clear proof of bad behavior. We've seen it in recent years! It's happened even when the scandal was fake. It's just not something that ever realed, both ways, and now it doesn't either direction, and the only defense you can bring is that one of the latest pebbles in the avalanche belonged to the other party.
In both cases, the relevant voters (while probably not thrilled about the scandals either, for the most part) ended up believing that there were bigger things at stake than the scandals.
Yes! And worse, it's all trivial bullshit that's within the range of conventional politics, not just in the sense that the most moderate Republican would have made these 'stakes' a decade ago, but even federal Democrats! For all everyone makes huge paeans for moderation and responsible governance and de-escalation, if the revealed preferences for any and all of those places is literally any political disagreement ever overcomes all that dehumanizing rhetoric and toleration of violence against the innocent, FCFromSSC is right, WhiningCoil is right, and SteveKirk is right.
I'd like them to be wrong! But that's not going to happen because you carefully play words games.
p
Trivially, you did so by throwing out irrelevant implications of antisemitism, conspiracy theory, qanon-ish schizophrenia, so on. It's not necessary for your claim, it's not supported by any of your evidence or by the motivations of your interlocutors, and it's bait, and I'm grabbing it and yanking. Either make the arguments in full, or don't bother.
And I'm pointing out that there's more information pointing to his legitimacy. He did not just joke or 'joke' about killing his political opponents. He 'joked' or joked about the innocent children of his political opponents getting murdered because he believed it would achieve a political goal. This is not a minor distinction, not does it exist outside of the realm of his elected workplace. And no one on the Blue Side of the aisle has bent over backwards to concede Trump (or Bush, or Youngkin, or Abbot, or yada yada) out of a deep alignment to small-d democratic supremacy.
I don't particularly care about who cast the first stone, but I would like to hear you spell out within a five-year-block when you think calling normal Republicans fascists became common discourse among the left-wing. Or, when that inevitably needs a thousand caveats, to say when it was first used to dehumanizing Red Tribe normies.
Would you like to demonstrate what Jay Jones has done, otherwise? Because if all it takes to "demonstrated" "character, compassion, and vision" is to xerox DNC pablum, and then to normalize violence, you're just saying the same thing with extra steps.
I hoped that they'd pressure the man to resign -- a nearly costless or even beneficial option, when Spanberger would appoint his replacement, who coincidentally would not also have to dodge serious questions about fraud on a court to get past his punishment for driving recklessly. That's not happening.
I expected they'd do exactly what they did. I considered it a joke that'd they do anything else, that's how predictable this end result was. It doesn't matter. I couldn't even get the people who wrote thousands of lines and drew thick lines in the sand here, to write in secret their opposition. It's not even new, but no one cares.
Behold, the grownups in the room.
We know it's possible for people to turn on politicians, even at far greater expense, and with far less clear proof of bad behavior. We've seen it in recent years! It's happened even when the scandal was fake. It's just not something that ever realed, both ways, and now it doesn't either direction, and the only defense you can bring is that one of the latest pebbles in the avalanche belonged to the other party.
Yes! And worse, it's all trivial bullshit that's within the range of conventional politics, not just in the sense that the most moderate Republican would have made these 'stakes' a decade ago, but even federal Democrats! For all everyone makes huge paeans for moderation and responsible governance and de-escalation, if the revealed preferences for any and all of those places is literally any political disagreement ever overcomes all that dehumanizing rhetoric and toleration of violence against the innocent, FCFromSSC is right, WhiningCoil is right, and SteveKirk is right.
I'd like them to be wrong! But that's not going to happen because you carefully play words games.
More options
Context Copy link