And on and on, if you listen. The existence of people oppresses conservatives, and the sight of others caring for such people oppresses them, and any laws curtailing of the ability to threaten such people oppresses them. It's never-ending oppression of conservatives out there.
Honestly it's just a squirming knot of slithering fearful hate at this point, the sort of thing that makes you a bit queasy whenever you have to consider it—which is often, unfortunately, because conservatives are the most over-represented and over-accommodated people on earth.
Trump: I want to be very clear, I will do a lot of mass murder of all the types of people, you know the ones, I want to round them all up and kill them all dead, we will bathe in the blood of democracy and eat its twitching corpse
TRUMP [speaking to Stormfront Moms, slurring profoundly, slumped like a beanbag chair]: the democrats, they take your child and turn them into a dragon of some kind, then they abort them, it’s a post birth dragon abortion, they call it dragbortion
NYT: Trump Speaks To Concerned Moms On Healthcare, Education Policy
"The whole point of the post-menopausal female." It was an off-handed comment, I suppose. It was said in an off-handed way.
It was made by Peter Thiel VC guy and podcaster Eric Weinstein, and agreed to by Theil VP guy and flopsweat enthusiast JD Vance, and it reveals a lot.🧵
"The whole point of ..." The topic seems benign—the benefits of having grandparents help raise children—which is a very true thing. It's easy for those who want to defend the comment to frame anyone who finds the wording creepy and sinister as overreacting.
BTW, this thread is part of an essay I wrote for my newsletter, and if you like my stuff, this is the best way to find the latest weekly piece. It’s free for those who can’t pay, supported in pay-what-you want fashion by readers who can.
This is the value of off-handedness to people who want to achieve sinister things. It makes a nice little ditch to hunker down in, if people start to do something very divisive and polarizing like remembering your actual words, and managing to understand your clear meaning.
Objectors can then be framed as *opposed* to multi-generational families, to raising children. And indeed these creeps do talk about the rest of us as if we hate things like family and children and society, even though they are the ones treating those things like possessions.
Anyone paying attention knows there’s a whole passel of moist pallid online dudes who freebased Jordan Peterson throughout the 2010s and antisocialized themselves into treating relationships with women as a sort of transactional warfare between sexes.
It’s a way of speaking about others that has become familiar in recent years, the sort of creepy shit creepy dudes like JD Vance say and agree with in order to impress creeps who think creepy things about women and others.
Some of these creepy perverts got rich on tech or crypto or whatever, and they think their wealth makes them geniuses instead of just wealthy, and the ones who didn't get rich through tech or crypto or whatever seem to think the wealth of the others conveys genius upon themselves
In creepworld, men are bold adventurers looking for sex and family, which are natural human connections they seem to view as video game achievements to be bestowed upon them if they enter the proper cheat code.
In creepworld, women are hidden clay jars containing sex and family, to be discovered and then once found added to the inventories of adventuring men as acquisitions.
And creeps are thick on the ground these days. One might even become Vice President.
It's that "the whole point of" that gives the game away. It creates this entire creaking haunted house of assumptions.
The assumption that comprises the frontage of the edifice is that women must have a point, and that certain men (them) are the ones who will define that point and make all adjudications about whether that point has been achieved.
So now creeps go around talking about themselves as Alpha Chad masters of the universe, and speak of other human beings like they're fodder for their whims, and generally sound do their very best to sound like eugenicist mad scientists in Victorian novels.
As journalists we cannot put our finger on the scale for or against a candidate by reporting on their exact words and the clear meaning of those exact words and the way that all of that candidate's policies and political achievements align with that rhetoric. That would be bias.
"Terrible things are happening outside. At any time of night and day, poor helpless people are being dragged out of their homes... Families are torn apart: men, women and children are separated. Children come home from school to find their parents have disappeared.”
Just having somebody who when "accused" will simply say "yes we feed hungry kids in my state, food is just the thing for hungry kids, what the hell is wrong with you?" instead of retreating into the anti-helping-people framing of the accuser is very refreshing.
A.R. Moxon (he/him) is author of the novel THE REVISIONARIES and the fiction podcast SUGAR MAPLE. His newsletter is The Reframe: https://armoxon.substack.com/He can climb trees, but chooses not to, recognizing that trees do not attempt to climb him.This is where he toots.