Here's what I need help understanding.

It not making logical sense is part of the point.

The less it makes sense, the more outrageous it is, the more contentious it is, the better it serves as a filter and identifier.

A good example is the deaths around BLM (with credit to slatestarcodex): People on the back-the-blue and conservative side could all agree, or were somewhat sympathetic, or had reservations about say, the case of eric gardner. The man was choked out for the suspicion of the crime of basically tax evasion by selling loosies. And contrast with the knee on shoulder of 'saint floyd', the chokehold used on Eric was actually not taught and not allowed. By reasonable logic, this should make it an even better case, you even have the libertarians and many on the right on your side, this was unjust, we could all agree, or at least there was enough on the right that did. So the BLM riots should be about him you'd think.

But that's what makes it far less useful to the left except to maintain and increase rage. You can't signal that you are a true communist believer by marching for Eric, because even the right agrees that that one was at least iffy. No, they need someone awful, someone who had just robbed a place and who points guns at pregnant women, and someone who died from routine police treatment from a heart issue because he was overdosing on drugs. Only a true believer would riot for that cause.

This is similar, you're looking at it all wrong. It makes no sense for there to be trans rep in this futuristic setting? "Good, because fuck you, by putting it in anyway I further prove how dedicated I am to the communist trans cause, how much of a trans-ally I am."

It not making sense is even more of a reason to do it. Both things not being able to both be true is a feature, not a bug. Engaging in this double-think is how you prove loyalty to the party.

Here's what I need help understanding.

It not making logical sense is part of the point.

The less it makes sense, the more outrageous it is, the more contentious it is, the better it serves as a filter and identifier.

A good example is the deaths around BLM (with credit to slatestarcodex): People on the back-the-blue and conservative side could all agree, or were somewhat sympathetic, or had reservations about say, the case of eric gardner. The man was choked out for the suspicion of the crime of basically tax evasion by selling loosies. And contrast with the knee on shoulder of 'saint floyd', the chokehold used on Eric was actually not taught and not allowed. By reasonable logic, this should make it an even better case, you even have the libertarians and many on the right on your side, this was unjust, we could all agree, or at least there was enough on the right that did. So the BLM riots should be about him you'd think.

But that's what makes it far less useful to the left except to maintain and increase rage. You can't signal that you are a true communist believer by marching for Eric, because even the right agrees that that one was at least iffy. No, they need someone awful, someone who had just robbed a place and who points guns at pregnant women. Only a true believer would riot for that cause.

This is similar, you're looking at it all wrong. It makes no sense for there to be trans rep in this futuristic setting? "Good, because fuck you, by putting it in anyway I further prove how dedicated I am to the communist trans cause, how much of a trans-ally I am."

It not making sense is even more of a reason to do it. Both things not being able to both be true is a feature, not a bug. Engaging in this double-think is how you prove loyalty to the party.

Here's what I need help understanding.

It not making logical sense is part of the point.

The less it makes sense, the more outrageous it is, the more contentious it is, the better it serves as a filter and identifier.

People on the back-the-blue and conservative side could all agree, or were somewhat sympathetic, or had reservations about say, the case of eric gardner. The man was choked out for the suspicion of the crime of basically tax evasion by selling loosies. And contrast with the knee on shoulder of 'saint floyd', the chokehold used on Eric was actually not taught and not allowed. By reasonable logic, this should make it an even better case, you even have the libertarians and many on the right on your side, this was unjust, we could all agree, or at least there was enough on the right that did. So the BLM riots should be about him you'd think.

But that's what makes it far less useful to the left except to maintain and increase rage. You can't signal that you are a true communist believe by marching for Eric, because even the right agrees that that one was at least iffy. No, they need someone awful, someone who had just robbed a place and who points guns at pregnant women. Only a true believer would riot for that cause.

This is similar, you're looking at it all wrong. It makes no sense for there to be trans rep in this futuristic setting? "Good, because fuck you, by putting it in anyway I further prove how dedicated I am to the communist trans cause, how much of a trans-ally I am."

It not making sense is even more of a reason to do it. Both things not being able to both be true is a feature, not a bug. Engaging in this double-think is how you prove loyalty to the party.

Here's what I need help understanding.

It not making logical sense is part of the point.

The less it makes sense, the more outrageous it is, the more contentious it is, the better it serves as a filter and identifier.

People on the back-the-blue and conservative side could all agree, or were somewhat sympathetic, or had reservations about say, the case of eric gardner. The man was choked out for the suspicion of the crime of basically tax evasion by selling loosies. And contrast with the knee on shoulder of 'saint floyd', the chokehold used on Eric was actually not taught and not allowed. By reasonable logic, this should make it an even better case, you even have the libertarians and many on the right on your side, this was unjust, we could all agree, or at least there was enough on the right that did. So the BLM riots should be about him you'd think.

But that's what makes it useless to the left. You can't signal that you are a true communist believe by marching for Eric, because even the right agrees that that one was at least iffy. No, they need someone awful, someone who had just robbed a place and who points guns at pregnant women. Only a true believer would riot for that cause.

This is similar, you're looking at it all wrong. It makes no sense for there to be trans rep in this futuristic setting? "Good, because fuck you, by putting it in anyway I further prove how dedicated I am to the communist trans cause, how much of a trans-ally I am."

It not making sense is even more of a reason to do it. Both things not being able to both be true is a feature, not a bug. Engaging in this double-think is how you prove loyalty to the party.

Here's what I need help understanding.

It not making logical sense is part of the point.

The less it makes sense, the more outrageous it is, the more contentious it is, the better it serves as a filter and identifier.

People on the back-the-blue and conservative side could all agree, or were somewhat sympathetic, or had reservations about say, the case of eric gardner. The man was choked out for the suspicion of the crime of basically tax evasion by selling loosies. And contrast with the knee on shoulder of 'saint floyd', the chokehold used on Eric was actually not taught and not allowed. By reasonable logic, this should make it an even better case, you even have the libertarians and many on the right on your side, this was unjust, we could all agree, or at least there was enough on the right that did. So the BLM riots should be about him you'd think.

But that's what makes it useless to the left. You can't signal that you are a true communist believe by marching for Eric, because even the right agrees that that one was at least iffy. No, they need someone awful, someone who had just robbed a place and who points guns at pregnant women. Only a true believer would riot for that cause.

This is similar, you're looking at it all wrong. It makes no sense for there to be trans rep in this futuristic setting? "Good, because fuck you, by putting it in anyway I further prove how dedicated I am to the communist trans cause, how much of a trans-ally I am."

It not making sense is even more of a reason to do it. Both things not being able to both be true is a feature, not a bug.