Read on Twitter
So many problems with The Discourse™ could be solved if agitators who make grand, sweeping statements about opponents—what "they" want/are trying to do—are forced to define who "they" are.
"They want to defund the police."
Oh, you mean some fringe activists, two Democratic House freshman, and nine city council members in Minneapolis?
"They want to tear down all the Ulysses S. Grant statues!"
Angry mob in San Francisco tore down one, and it'll likely be restored.
Oh, you mean some fringe activists, two Democratic House freshman, and nine city council members in Minneapolis?
"They want to tear down all the Ulysses S. Grant statues!"
Angry mob in San Francisco tore down one, and it'll likely be restored.
Saying "they" want to do something is pretty unfalsifiable. In a country of 330 million, there are always going to be random people out there pushing for something or another. But most of the time, those people hold little to no power over the rest of our lives.
Current media/politics incentive structures reward the propping up of these random voices as indicative of broader groups and movements, but this behavior does a massive disservice to the vast majority of Americans, who are generally pretty chill.
When you see stuff like this, just ask: Who?
