Most people (schizos excepted) who say things like this don’t mean that some random person was actually receiving orders from whatever group they blame, but that said group has manipulated societal incentive structures to produce this kind of outcome more often. Your performative incredulity is misplaced because it doesn’t address the point; it’s as though you saw someone talking about “Soros DAs” releasing criminals and went “wow, of course George Soros personally ordered Jamal to mug that guy and Shaniqua to release him afterward!”
No one was suggesting that, and you look dumb and/or hostile for implying they were.
Most people (schizos excepted) who say things like this
It's Ahaus, bro. He's at least borderline.
it’s as though you saw someone talking about “Soros DAs”
It's nothing like that. If he pointed out that Soros donated to that DA, I wouldn't have said anything. He pointed out nothing. This is attributing random events to some grand conspiracy with nothing connecting the dots hence why there is only some vague inferences and nothing concrete.
I read his comment as saying that the light sentencing was the deliberate enabling of said “useful idiots,” and more broadly that women’s movements supported /encouraged by “Fabian Socialists” have encouraged marital strife and intersexual hostility. Not that he literally meant someone had told her that she should poison her husband.
Honestly, the most unusual part of his comment is who he ascribes it to. If you rewrite it as “feminist influence” rather than “Fabian Socialist,” (or “Jews,” or “Communists,” or “China”) you could use it as a pretty standard talking point for various sections of the right.
Most people (schizos excepted) who say things like this don’t mean that some random person was actually receiving orders from whatever group they blame, but that said group has manipulated societal incentive structures to produce this kind of outcome more often. Your performative incredulity is misplaced because it doesn’t address the point; it’s as though you saw someone talking about “Soros DAs” releasing criminals and went “wow, of course George Soros personally ordered Jamal to mug that guy and Shaniqua to release him afterward!”
No one was suggesting that, and you look dumb and/or hostile for implying they were.
It's the criminal justice spin off from Reagan's quote of "If you want more of something, subsidize it. If you want less of something, tax it".
It's Ahaus, bro. He's at least borderline.
It's nothing like that. If he pointed out that Soros donated to that DA, I wouldn't have said anything. He pointed out nothing. This is attributing random events to some grand conspiracy with nothing connecting the dots hence why there is only some vague inferences and nothing concrete.
I read his comment as saying that the light sentencing was the deliberate enabling of said “useful idiots,” and more broadly that women’s movements supported /encouraged by “Fabian Socialists” have encouraged marital strife and intersexual hostility. Not that he literally meant someone had told her that she should poison her husband.
Honestly, the most unusual part of his comment is who he ascribes it to. If you rewrite it as “feminist influence” rather than “Fabian Socialist,” (or “Jews,” or “Communists,” or “China”) you could use it as a pretty standard talking point for various sections of the right.
The key difference is the legacy of Fabian socialism in America is the 19th amendment.
That narrative would have made more sense as well. It was so vague that it came across like ranting about flat earth or some shit to me.