05-23-2024, 08:09 PM
(05-23-2024, 08:02 PM)Maxmars Wrote: That's a really good question.
I mean, if the (or any) police-state, or oppressive situation is a direct function of the political ideology, how could you discuss it?
Would you have to caricaturize the leadership and underlings as people, turn them into cartoon figures and lampoon every aspect of their lives? Would you have to create a slogan campaign, an encyclopedia of memes, and monetize the outrage? Would you need to psychologically damage anyone who disagrees with you?
Or would it be possible to simply address the policy or act that you disagree with and use reason and persuasive argument to demonstrate where and how it is unacceptable?
Would you really need to vilify the people or persons who support the presumable 'bad' policy... or could you just talk about the policy and why it's wrong.
I get it though, sometimes I break my own rules too. And I'm not talking about reducing your expressions to some form of clinically-detached dry humorless thing. If it were only an exception in political discourse it could be accepted as a small thing, maybe not embraced, but overlooked mostly.
But right now, that trash talk is 'celebrated' to the point of making most political discussion a slug-fest of insults and generalizations... vilification has become the new "normal."
If you hate Biden, or you hate Trump... can you express why specifically... or only trash and belittle either one, along with all who disagree?
Some will support the police-state, some will be against it.
If we can't even talk about it here, then I won't be a frequent flier.
I hafta say what I hafta say.
When I was a writer for Townhall, I wasn't as censored.