LogFAQs > #902195854

Kenri posted...

Since that isn't worth replying to, I'm assuming me in the hypothetical at least has good reason to claim it. Is that the issue here?

The core issues here is that a lot of the liberal boogeymen people claim it

1. More quickly than swing voters necessarily would.
2. In more situations than swing voters necessarily consider it prudent to.
3. With more conviction than swing voters necessarily find warranted given what is known.

And do so while projecting a "well if you disagree you are free to be wrong" aura. So yeah a lot of people find it offputting.

As for what you're saying, Jakyl, the key is calling the action bigoted, rather than the person, and mentioning it when it's relevant to the context of the discussion. There's a big difference between randomly mentioning that a dude did something and how despicable he is out of the blue vs the guy coming up in conversation and you saying "he acted kinda bigoted the other day when he did ___ and that was offputting"

Like I don't think there are many things that even super liberal Kenri would bring up in that context that a swingy person would outright disagree is an action that doesn't give a good look for the person's moral fiber or whatever, but like, I definitely see a lot of things where it's like "why are we talking about this here"

If you want something where it's possible the swing voter outright disagrees -- Police stories in general I think are an excellent example of this. Many many super liberals will basically take the side of the perp by default, even when there isn't a lot of information yet. It's just not a good look, particularly for people who have had better experience with police than random people on the street.
---

No problem!
This is a cute and pop genocide of love!